examining community radio as a participatory …

EXAMINING COMMUNITY RADIO AS A PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION MEDIUM IN

KIBERA: A CASE OF PAMOJA FM

by

Linda Muthoni Muthuri 13-0380

A thesis submitted to the School of Communication, Language and Performing Arts

of

Daystar University Nairobi, Kenya

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS in Communication

June 2016

Daystar University Repository

Library Archives Copy

APPROVAL

EXAMINING COMMUNITY RADIO AS A PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION MEDIUM IN KIBERA: A CASE OF PAMOJA FM

by

Linda Muthoni Muthuri

13-0380

In accordance with Daystar University policies, this thesis is accepted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Arts degree

Date

__________________________________

Paul Mbutu, PhD,

1st Supervisor

_______________________

__________________________________

Leah Komen, PhD, 2nd Supervisor

_______________________

________________________________ Rosemary Kowuor Nyaole, PhD, HOD, Communication Department

_______________________

________________________________

Levi Obonyo, PhD, Dean, School of Communication, Language

and Performing Arts

_______________________

ii



Copyright © 2016 Linda Muthoni Muthuri

iii



DECLARATION


I declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been submitted to any other college or university for academic credit.

Signed: ____________________________

Linda Muthoni Muthuri (13-0380)

Date: June 2016

iv



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been possible without the help of many. First and

foremost I thank the Lord for being my strength throughout this arduous journey, You

enabled me to find enjoyment in my labour, I praise You.

Thanks to my parents, Francis and Priscillah Muthuri, constantly supporting me

and pushing me to finish before I age.

My very supportive supervision team; Dr. Paul Mbutu – your humility, patience

and kindness was so reassuring, and Dr. Leah Komen – your laughter and sheer joy was

contagious. Thank you so very much.

To the people at Pamoja FM and the Kibera community, Mzee Adam Hussein,

Mzee Shamola, Okoth Opondo, Billy, HB, Unco Jazz, my research help Timothy, without

your help, this would not have been possible.

v



TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL ......................................................................................................................... ii

DECLARATION .................................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................... viii

ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................ix

DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................x

CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ............................................1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

Background to the Study .......................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................5

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................6

Objectives of the Study .........................................................................................................6

Research Questions ...............................................................................................................6

Justification of the Study .......................................................................................................7

Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................8

Assumptions of the Study .....................................................................................................9

Scope of the Study.................................................................................................................9

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ..........................................................................9

Definition of Terms .............................................................................................................10

Summary .............................................................................................................................12

CHAPTER TWO.................................................................................................................13

LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................13

Introduction .........................................................................................................................13

Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................13

General Literature Review ..................................................................................................20

Empirical Studies on Participation in Community Radio ...................................................29

Summary .............................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................................32

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................32

Introduction .........................................................................................................................32 Research Design ..................................................................................................................33

Population............................................................................................................................33

Target Population ................................................................................................................34

Sample Size .........................................................................................................................34

Sampling techniques ...........................................................................................................35

Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................................36

Focus Group Discussions ....................................................................................................36

In-depth Interviewing ..........................................................................................................38

Types of Data ......................................................................................................................38

Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................................38

Pretesting .............................................................................................................................39

Data Analysis Plan ..............................................................................................................39

Ethical Considerations.........................................................................................................39

Summary .............................................................................................................................40

CHAPTER FOUR ...............................................................................................................41

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION.................................41

vi



Introduction .........................................................................................................................41

Analysis and Interpretation .................................................................................................41

Summary of Key Findings ..................................................................................................72

Summary .............................................................................................................................74

CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................75

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................75

Introduction .........................................................................................................................75

Discussion of Key Findings ................................................................................................75

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................85

Recommendations ...............................................................................................................88

Areas for Further Research .................................................................................................91

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................93 Appendix A: Focus Group Discussion Guide (Community Listener Group/Youth) ........102

Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide (Children)..................................................104

Appendix C: In-depth Interview Guide (Head of trainees of Pamoja FM) .......................106

Appendix D: In-depth Interview Guide (Founder/MD of Pamoja FM). ...........................108

Appendix E: In-depth Interview Guide (Head of programming/presenters/). ..................110

Appendix F: NACOSTI Research Permit .........................................................................112

Appendix G: Consent of Child Participation in Academic Study .....................................114

vii



AMARC

CLG

CR

FGD

FM

PADEC

PC

PEV

RA

SMS

UNCD

UNESC

O

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

World Association for Community Broadcasters

Community Listener Group

Community Radio

Focus Group Discussion

Frequency Modulated radio signal

Pamoja Development Centre

Participatory Communication

Post Election Violence

Research Assistant

Short Message Service

United Nations Communication for Development

United Nations Education Scientific Cultural Organisation

viii



ABSTRACT

This study examined community radio as a participatory medium of communication with

the case of Pamoja FM in Kibera. In exploring the station‘s commitment to community

through participation, the study examined the participatory strategies employed and their

gaps in meeting access and participation requirements as in theory. The study was

theoretically guided by Freire‘s dialogic pedagogy and UNESCO debates of access,

participation and self-management. The study used a descriptive design and a purposive

sampling technique. The target population comprised community radio listeners, managers

and presenters of Pamoja FM with a sample size of 60 participants. Focus Group

Discussions and interviews were conducted and recorded. Recordings were transcribed

into textual data and analysed through NVivo software following a thematic framework.

Findings revealed a skeleton view of participation where activities described presented

passive forms of participation such as contributing to discussions, song requests.

Management included elements of programming and planning though found to be hardly

practised. Elements of participatory theory were present but largely limited. Access in

selection of communication content and interactions between the community and station

management was lacking. Dialogue was restricted by limited interpersonal

communication, lack of synchrony in problem definition and a lack of horizontal

communication. Pamoja FM was seen to play its catalytic role in generating debate in

some instances. Participation was primarily extended through content generation but

hardly in production and policy. Recommendations underlined a need for increased

interpersonal communication between community and station that would address several

participatory deficits particularly in dialogue and access.

ix



DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to all those committed to making a difference and not just a

living. To the men and women in Kibera who truly see to make a difference in their

community. To the ―Humming Birds‖ of this country, continent and world... who choose

to do the best they can, no matter how small and insignificant they feel.

To my father who always supports my academic ventures and wonders why I have

taken so long with such ‗a simple project‘. To my mother who in her unspoken interest

supported me anyhow. To my brother Kithinji who vowed never to read a book after his

undergraduate degree and marvels at how I can do this. To my brother Kimathi, you will

make it. To my sister, I beat you to it!

To Mrs. Rebecca Ng‘ang‘a; I thank you for your immense contribution to the

rekindling of my then unknown purpose for my Masters. To Sr. Prof. A. L. Lando; thank

you for twice taking the rare step to see something more than just a presentation, your

academic mentorship propelled me to publish works i never thought I would.

To my fellow students, those who are with me in this academic struggle, Winnie

Kodi, Sylvia Njambi, May Livere, Doda June, Faith Kisyangangi, Brenda Wawa, Carol

Songa. A luta Continua!

To God, my Rock.

x



xi



CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Introduction

This section looks at the nature of community radio as a participatory means of

communication in urban informal settlements. According to Girard (2001), the most

defining feature of a community radio station is the ―participatory nature of the

relationship between it and the community‖ and its ―commitment to community

participation‖ (pp. 1-2). The study deals with Pamoja FM, a community radio station in

Kibera informal settlement. The study explores the potential of community radio – as a

participatory medium of communication and community participation – as a component of

participatory media (Bailey, Cammaerts, & Carpentier, 2007). This chapter also discusses

the problem statement, purpose and assumptions of the study, significance and

justification of the study, limitation and delimitations of the study.

Background to the Study

―Without communication there is no development‖ that was the theme at the first

World Congress on Communication for Development in Rome (The Communication

Initiative, Food and Agriculture Organisation, The World Bank, 2007) to show the integral

role of communication in development. Communication for development was described as

a ―social process based on dialogue… listening, sharing knowledge and skills, debating,

learning and using a broad range of tools and methods‖ (The Communication Initiative,

Food and Agriculture Organisation, The World Bank, 2007, p. xxxiii). These tools are

communication systems that allow communities to speak out, express their aspirations and

participate in the decisions that relate to their development (United Nations

Communication for Development, 2011).

1



Most debates on the role of communication in development do not merely focus on

empowerment, but on challenging people to generate and exchange information, to own

and participate in their issues of development in an aim to improve their wellbeing

(Melkote & Steeves, 2001; Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009; WCCD, 2007). Participation thus

gives an opportunity for people to be involved in decision making processes about their

development (WCCD, 2007). Such engagement has been seen to best be accommodated

through community media which is considered a filler to ―the media–democracy gap left

by commercial and state-owned media‖ (Conrad, 2014, p. 775).

Radio networks in Africa are the most used means of information exchange

particularly to marginalised communities due to their availability, affordability, extensive

reach, accessibility and pervasive nature (Fraser & Estrada, 2001; Myers, 2008). Radio‘s

capacity to influence and bring about social change is a principle that has been held by

early development communication theorists who believed that ―mere exposure to radio

messages was enough to cause social changes that would lead to development‖ (Opoku-

Mensah, 2000, p. 167). While radio had proven itself a developmental tool, it was

particularly suggested that ―the rise of community radios‖ was what facilitated ―a far

more participatory and horizontal type of communication than was possible with the older,

centralised broadcasting model‖ (Myers, 2008, p. 12). Community radio was further seen

to ―revive the participatory potential of radio‖ after radio was losing its dialogic potential

as it turned to ―a mass media broadcasting tool‖ (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009, p. 9).

By its very definition, community radio is participatory with several definitions

associating its purpose with the involvement of the community in addressing its needs.

Fraser and Estrada (2002) defined community radio as a non-profit service owned by a

community whose programmes are based on ―audience access and participation‖

reflecting special needs of the community (p. 70). The African Charter on Broadcasting

2



defines community radio as ―broadcasting which is for, by and about the

community...which pursues a social development agenda‖ (Dacosta, 2009, p. 3). It is also

viewed as an avenue for public debate, dialogue and community participation (Fraser &

Estrada, 2002; White, 2008). From these definitions, community radio is seen as

dependant on a participatory approach as the backbone to its efficiency and success

(Urgoiti, 1999). In fact, community radio discussions are seen to lean towards the concept

of community having direct access to and participating actively in programming and

management (Manyozo, 2010; Mensah, 2000).

The community radio to be addressed in this paper shall be Pamoja FM which

broadcasts in Kibera urban informal settlement. Kibera has been described as the most

―heart-rending places on planet Earth‖ (Parsons, 2010, p. 28) and while this description is

overstated, the truth remains that Kibera‘s struggle as a marginalised community is very

real. Kibera is located three miles southwest of Nairobi‘s city center and comprises 13

―villages‖ covering an area of two square kilometres (Allavida Kenya, 2012; Ekdale,

2014; Erulka & Matheka, 2007). It first served as a settlement land for Sudanese Nubian

soldiers retiring from the British army (Mutisya & Yarime, 2011, p. 202).

Kibera‘s slum population remains contentious with population figures soaring to

one million. This figure has been opposed by many who cite a lack of methodological

justification, dubious motives to obtaining NGO funding and laziness of mass media to

verify actual population, as motivation behind the inflated figures (Ekdale, 2010; Karanja,

2010; Sesana, 2014). However, in 2008, Prof. Stefano Marras, an Italian social researcher,

carried out a mapping in Kibera with a pilot of Kianda village. It concluded that the area

could be inhabited by a total population ranging from 235,000 to a maximum of 270,000

people given its area. Official statistics by the Kenya population and housing census

(2009) indicated a population of 170,070. Major local tribes comprised Luos, Kikuyus,

3



Kalenjin, Luhya, Kamba and Nubians (Umande Trust; as cited in Mutisya & Yarime,

2011).

Radio occupies a central place in Kibera community and forms a popular source of

information. Pamoja FM, whose name means togetherness, was founded during the Post-

Election Violence in 2007 by Mr. Adam Hussein, a lifelong resident of Kibera who serves as

the station manager. His main goal was to foster peace among the then conflicting tribes in the

region. The vision then expanded to one geared to ―create, develop, apply, transmit through

thematic radio shows, knowledge, skills and understanding at various human development

levels to ensure equal, sustainable development, peaceful co-existence among communities of

Kibera ... seeking to empower the Kibera youth through education and infotainment‖ (Pamoja

FM). Their mission is to ―achieve excellence in carrying out its fundamental promises to the

community living up to its values and beliefs‖ (Pamoja FM).

While the vision is stated in theory, it is important to examine practically how

Pamoja FM represents a community radio living up to its true nature as participatory.

Researchers have argued that media development theories are theoretically focussed but

disconnected from the reality on the ground. Challenging participatory communication

scholarship, Fairchild (2010) found it difficult to apply community radio theories to actual

ground projects. Conrad (2014) attributed this to ideal rather than actual functions that

―vocabulary often associated with community media describe‖ (p. 777). Berger (2002)

argued that the real challenge facing academics is to ―develop original theory based on

African experiences‖ (p. 41). This research sought to unpack the participatory nature of

relationship between Pamoja FM and Kibera from an urban Kenyan community radio

context. It explored Pamoja FM‘s commitment to community through participation by

examining the participatory strategies employed. Girard (2001) posited that commitment

of radio to the community can be seen ―at all levels of community radio participation

4



where community are listeners, producers, managers, directors, evaluators and even

owners of the station (p. 2). It is important then to examine how community is involved in

Pamoja FM even with reference to the above activities.

Statement of the Problem

Most radio stations participate moderately in the lives of their listeners either

through song requests, competitions or defined debates. According to Gumucio-Dagron

(2001) as cited by Manyozo (2010), ―not all community radio services meet access and

participation requirements as most … lean toward market interests‖ (p. 3). Market interests

in community radio translate to donor interests. In his study on community radios in East

Africa including Pamoja FM, Conrad (2014) found that donor interests influence

programming content led to a recipient participatory role by the community in content

generation (p. 773). Similarly, in Pamoja FM, programmes with a donor backing contain

content of donor priority thus restricting community participation in content generation

and participation through ownership by the community, which has been a burden to

Pamoja FM management (Conrad, 2011, p. 136).

According to Mtinde, Bonin, Maphiri, and Nyamaku (1998), the requirement of

community participation ensures that community members are involved in the running of

the station in activities as ―election of leadership, policy-making, management of the

station, selection and provision of programming, production and external representation of

the station‖ (p. 23). While in principle Pamoja FM tries to follow a participatory model

through avenues such as debates, its full participatory potential has not been exploited. It

is not clear the place of community participation in tenets such as access to develop,

produce and manage programmes; or in self-management. This warrants a need for

exploring the participatory relationship between Pamoja FM and the Kibera community

that will also lead to gauging the commitment of radio to community (Girard, 2001).

5



Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine Pamoja FM as a participatory

communication medium in Kibera. This was through looking at the participatory

communication relationship between the station and the community.

Objectives of the Study

1) To find out the understanding of the term ‗participation‘ from the perspective of

Pamoja FM staff/management and Kibera community.

2) To describe the participatory communication strategies Pamoja FM used to involve

the Kibera community including how members of Kibera community participated

in the running of Pamoja FM through access, dialogue, content development and

programming, management.

3) To address the existing gaps between participatory theory approaches and actual

practice of participatory communication tenets particularly with regard to dialogue,

participation, access, management of Pamoja FM.

1) What was the understanding of the term ‗participation‘ from the perspective of

Pamoja FM staff and Kibera community?

2) What participatory communication strategies did Pamoja FM use to involve the

Kibera community including community participation through dialogue, access,

management, content development and programming?

3) What were the existing gaps between participatory theory and actual practice of

participatory communication with regard to dialogue, participation, access,

management of Pamoja FM?

6



Justification of the Study

The researcher undertook the study firstly because of the focus and relevance of

participation in current development communication. Participation has gained massive

support from vital stakeholders such as governments, donors, civil society and ordinary

citizens (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009).

The researcher was further motivated to undertake this study because most studies

on community radio centred on its role to steer development and not so much its ability to

be more effective in development through addressing participatory relationships between

the community and radio. Similarly, studies, to the researcher‘s knowledge, on Pamoja

FM sought to either look into the role the station played in calming tempers during Post

Election Violence (Mercier, 2009) or in it generally being a tool for development in

Kibera. However not many studies on Pamoja FM focus on examining participatory

relationships and empowering communities through participation, which has not only been

a focus on academic literature (Cammaerts, 2009; Fraser & Estrada, 2001; Gumucio,

2001; Rennie, 2006) but also has been known to increase the possibilities for the

empowerment of local communities in developing countries (Cammaerts, 2009, p. 636).

The researcher was also motivated by the belief that one of the ways development

progress can improve through community radio is if its participatory nature is exploited.

The World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (2007) asserted that if the

audience of a community radio is effectively mobilized, it can lead to ―poverty

reductions, participation, peace building, governance and accountability‖ (AMARC, 2007,

p. 1). Kibera is among the poorest urban areas in Nairobi however if community

participation in radio is encouraged, it may lead to leaps in development there.

7



Significance of the Study

Findings of this study would help improve Pamoja FM‘s effectiveness by

recommending ways in which its participatory nature can be utilised so as to enhance

development in Kibera. According to the world association of community radio

broadcasters (AMARC), community radio is considered effective in poverty reduction and

sustainable human development due if its ability to facilitate access to information is

realised (AMARC, 2007). Equal sustainable development in Kibera is what Pamoja FM

seeks, hence the study‘s findings on how participatory communication between the station

and Kibera community can be facilitated, could bolster its ability to achieve its goals.

This study would benefit Kibera community by advancing cohesion in its diverse

yet volatile composition. Viewing participatory strategies and providing recommendations

on maximising ways of interactions between Kibera community and Pamoja FM could

contribute to enhancing relationships among the diverse cultures in Kibera and set ground

for other community, state, commercial, and religious broadcasters to benefit in generating

social cohesion communication strategies amid communities. Government stakeholders

and NGOs could also benefit on how to use radio networks as instruments of participatory

knowledge production and exchange for social change.

The study‘s findings could also contribute to the shaping of development

communication literature and practice with regard to participatory media strategies in

African contexts. Knowing the interpretations of meanings of participation would help to

show the gaps between academic theory and actual practice on the ground and lead to

ways in which such discrepancies can be addressed. Moreover, by exploring the

participatory relationship between community and community radio, shortcomings in

participation could be observed, contextualised and addressed to improve the capacity of

people to develop themselves through these relationships (Melkote & Steeves, 2001).

8



Assumptions of the Study

1. That the staff in Pamoja FM understood the potential in which the radio could be

utilised as a participatory communication tool.

2. That Pamoja FM staff/ management and Kibera community would be willing to

participate in the study.

3. That the respondents would be impartial in the responses they give.

The scope of this study was limited to the Kibera urban informal settlement in

Nairobi where Pamoja FM broadcasts. Kibera is located less than five kilometres

Southwest of Nairobi town (Ekdale, 2014) and sits on an area approximately 2.5 square

kilometres (Mutisya & Yarime, 2011, p. 201). The study comprised selected listeners from

Pamoja FM‘s listener group of 200 members; youth and children listeners who form a

predominant population in Kibera, and radio managers, producers, volunteers/ interns and

presenters of Pamoja FM.

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

1. The use of English language in the research tools would be a challenge as many

community members do not know English. To counter this limitation, the

researcher translated the questions into Kiswahili language while interviewing.

2. Many station staff/management had been interviewed by researchers before and

would be biased to support their strategies feeling tasked to say what they thought I

wanted to hear by recycled statements such as; the station brought ‗empowerment‘

and was ‗participatory‘. The researcher countered this by articulating research

questions broadly and used other objective data collection methods such as

observation.

9



3. The interpretation of the term of participation which to many, participation through

radio was normal call in conversations. However this was handled through focus

group discussions and in depth interviews that discussed the meaning of

participation within Kibera community and Pamoja FM.

Definition of Terms

Participatory Communication: Dunn and Cornish (2009) defined participatory

communication as the practice of involving people in creating and sharing knowledge and

experiences in order to pursue agendas of their own choosing. The study defined

participatory communication as a process of exchange of ideas using various

communication channels; in this case, involving Kibera community in exchange of ideas,

knowledge and experiences through Pamoja FM.

Participation: Participation in this study used Freire‘s dialogic pedagogy definition

which referred to the right of all people to individually and collectively speak their word;

and the UNESCO debates of participation as access to communication medium and

participation in the planning and production of media content. Participation is viewed as

the ability of the Kibera community to exchange ideas through Pamoja FM, access the

station, and participate in the planning and production of media content.

Dialogue: This study defined dialogue as the process of entering into

communication where ideas are exchanged freely in an atmosphere of freedom, where

listening and learning take place in equality (Freire, 2005). Dialogue is thus defined as the

free exchange of ideas between Kibera community and Pamoja FM where there is an

equal exchange of knowledge between the two parties, in humility and respect.

Dialogic Communication: The study used Freire (2005) definition of dialogic

communication where each participant bears a joint responsibility in the process of

communication; where ideas are freely shared through reflection and each participant

10



questions what he knows and is open to the fact that through dialogue, existing thoughts

will change and new knowledge could be created. The study looked into dialogic

communication between Kibera community and Pamoja FM.

Community: Manyozo (as cited in Bosch, 2003) referred community to be the

geography of a community in which community radio is construed.This study defined

community as a group of people living in a particular geographical area and sharing

certain values and practices. In this case the community was within the confines of Kibera

informal settlement.

Community Radio: Fraser and Estrada (2002) defined community radio in terms of

its features; it is non-profitable, targeted to a specific community, offers a platform for

participation and public dialogue to name and address community needs, this study

defined community radio in terms of these features as represented in Pamoja FM.

Communication medium: This research adopted the definition by Turow (2009)

where communication medium means a part of a technical system that helps in

transmission, distribution, or reception of messages. This study focused on community

radio as the communication medium and particularly Pamoja FM.

Communication strategies: The study adopted Agunga‘s (1997) definition of

communication being a process of creating and stimulating understanding as the basis for

development rather than information transmission. Thus communication strategies would

create messages that would form a process of creating and stimulating understanding in

development. Hence communication strategies involved Pamoja FM creating messages

that would form a social and symbiotic process of creating and stimulating understanding

in development in Kibera community.

11



FM: This study adopted FM as an acronym for Frequency Modulated radio signal

to mean radio waves that broadcast on a Frequency-modulated signal. Pamoja FM

operates on the frequency 99.9 FM; as do all Kenyan community radio stations.

Summary

This chapter looked into the introduction to the study, the problem statement, the purpose,

research questions and objectives of the study, the rationale and significance of the study,

assumptions and limitations of the study, the scope of the study and definition of the terms

as used in the study.

The next chapter would explore participatory approaches to development

communication through community radio. The two major approaches centred on the

―dialogical pedagogy of Freire and the ideas of access, participation and self-management

articulated in the UNESCO debates of the 1970s‖ (Servaes & Malikhao, 2002, p. 236).

12



CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter introduced the reader to the theoretical framework for the study, key

concepts and empirical evidences that contributed to the discussion around community

radio as a participatory communication medium in Kenya‘s Kibera community.

Theoretical Framework

The history of communication theory in development has tended to adopt a

‗Westernised‘ view when describing its origin, evolution and paradigm shifts (Curran &

Park, 2000). These views focussed on mass media technologies such as radio, as tools for

changing human behaviour and introducing development (Lasswell, 1948; Lerner, 1958)

to traditional societies of Africa and Asia. This came to form the modernised theory. Mass

media technology was linked to development with the belief that disseminating

information would lead to political participation, and economic growth (Lerner, 1958).

Media expansion in Africa was emphasised as a way of disseminating information

on development programs to the masses (Nassanga, 2009) with the conviction that social

change would occur if educational, political, and economic information about national

development was provided and explained to the people (Malikhao & Servaes, 2005;

Schramm, 1964). In due course, scholars became convinced that common processes

needed a more human approach centred on the practise of human beings (Barranquero,

2011). This laid ground for participatory communication approaches.

Participatory communication approaches emerged during the 1940s through to the

70s stressing the concepts of community participation, empowerment through media and

dialogue. Its proponents maintained that meanings and values of development needed to

be produced by the people within the community and focussed on the importance of

13



people, their ability to discern for themselves their need and help themselves in the task of

transforming their society (Melkotee & Steeves, 2001; Rahim, 2004; Servaes, 2007;

Xavier Institute, 1980). Participatory approaches encourage two-way communication,

process rather than outcomes and critical thinking where both community and practitioner

are vital in contributing to solutions (Servaes, 2007, p. 216).

Communities are encouraged to be involved in all levels of international, national

and local development where the individual is fully involved in decision-making,

implementation and evaluation of projects (Bessette, 2006; Servaes & Malikhao, 2007).

Through participation, people are given a chance to have a say in crucial decisions

affecting one‘s life (Melkote & Steeves, 2015) and not required to adopt new practices in

development despite seeming beneficial in the eyes of external parties. Media is used not

simply as an avenue of transmission but an avenue of facilitating dialogue and

participation.

The study explored the two major models associated with participatory

communication theory; ―dialogical pedagogy of Paulo Freire, and UNESCO debates on

the ideas of access, participation and self-management (Servaes & Malikhao, 2002, p.

236).

Dialogic Pedagogy of Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire was a Brazilian educator whose experiences and writings in adult

literacy education in Brazil helped to form one of the major tenets in participatory

communication, dialogue. Freire‘s model attached an importance to interpersonal channels

of communication in decision-making processes at the community level. At the heart of

participatory communication according to Freire is dialogue. Freire viewed development

communication ideally as ―emancipatory dialogue that led to expanded consciousness

and power‖ (Melkote & Steeves, 2001, p. 299). He was concerned about helping people

14



become aware of their under-dog situation by enabling them to become aware of their

capacity to shape their environment. This emancipation from within would enable people

to discern social, political and economic injustices and take action against it, an experience

he called conscientization or critical consciousness. Freire saw communication through

dialogue as key to awakening critical consciousness.

Freire (2005) defined dialogue to be ―the encounter between men, mediated by

the world, in order to name the world‖ (p. 88). Naming the world in terms of development

would be equated to ―problem definition‖ (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009, p. 10).

Communication therefore through Freire‘s dialogic format, is one where people co-

participate in the definition and exchange of meanings of the world they are in, which

includes perceptions of their level of development, social and economic status and

definitions of their own problems. These interactions are on an equal plane hence dialogue

cannot ―occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this

naming—between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose

right to speak has been denied them‖ (Freire, 2005, p. 88). This came to form the basis of

horizontal communication.

Freire‘s dialogic communication further placed emphasis on reciprocal

communication a bottom-up communication approach as the ideal development through

the arguement that ―individuals have the internal capacity to develop themselves on their

own terms but they need relationships to recognizes and act on this capacity‖ (Melkote &

Steeves, 2001, p. 298). For Freire, individuals had the capacity to generate ideas, to reflect

on those ideas in relation to their situation, to make decisions, to plan, to critically think

and bring about the social change they sought to have hence the need for relationships that

would engage them in their own development. Freire introduced the concept of a catalyst

in dialogue; as a person who articulated the communication so as to facilitate dialogue in

15



the community. Communication channels are therefore used to ―generate dialogue to

help people understand each other and identify their collective problems‖ (Melkote &

Steeves, 2001, p. 339).

Whilst Freire‘s focus on the individual is the theory‘s strength as in participation;

his criticism rose from his emphasis that interpersonal forms of communication were the

only channels through which dialogic communication could take place hence overlooking

media communications. According to Servaes and Malikhao (2002) ―one problem with

Freire is that his theory of dialogical communication is based on group dialogue rather

than amplifying media such as radio, print and television‖ (p. 237). For instance, Freire

defined a catalyst to be typically a person however (Metafolupos & Tufte, 2009) suggested

that a catalyst could be media such as radio or television programmes. Waisbord (2001)

added that Freire‘s focus on interpersonal relations ―underplayed the potential of the

mass media in promoting development as participation and process‖ (p. 21).

This criticism does hold ground as radio has historically been linked to

development. Several areas of influence Schramm (1964) presented that mass media has in

the task of national development, relate to the interpersonal communication traits of

Freire‘s group dialogue such as, feeding interpersonal channels of communication, helping

change strongly held attitudes unfavourable to development, enforcing social norms and

helping in all types of education and training.

The major tenets of Freire‘s dialogic communication could be employed in

community radio interactions with the community through participatory strategies

employed. Communication channels such as community radio, firstly, could be used as

catalysts to generate dialogue in the community. However, community radio as a catalyst

must be in co-participation with the community audience in a horizontal and reciprocal

manner. As dialogue is an encounter of men with the world in order to name the world that

16



is, define their development needs and solutions, generate ideas and make decisions,

community radio can facilitate this encounter and forge these relationships that can enable

the community audience to release their internal capacity for development.

Community radio can expose its dialogic potential if it can be able to facilitate the

generation and exchange of ideas among the community audience, offer co-participation

in areas such as programming of shows, content generation, decision making and further

be able to allow the community to define the development needs they want to see

addressed through the shows and not transmit already packaged shows. Questions such as

what participatory strategies are present? How does the community interact with the

station? Who determines the content of the shows? How does the management of the

station involve the community? are vital to revealing the dialogic element of community

radio.

UNESCO Language about Self-Management, Access and Participation

The second model of participatory communication theory involves the

participatory uses of media in development which entails the UNESCO language on

access, participation, and self-management. These concepts were drawn as part of a series

of initiatives by UNESCO to promote participation in communication. The initiatives were

geared towards addressing participation in communication media in developing countries

(UNESCO, 1977, p. 1). For participatory communication in development to be so, the

following elements were termed as key: Access, Participation and self-management with

the first two considered key in the understanding of community media (Berrigan,

1979).The terms were defined as follows:

Access

Access refers to the use of media for public service. It may be defined in terms of

the ―opportunities available to the public to choose varied and relevant programs and to

17



have a means of feedback to transmit its reactions and demands to production

organizations‖ (UNESCO, 1977, pp. 3-4). Access is in two levels; choice access where the

individual has the right to access communication materials and where the public

(community), has the availability of a range of materials selected by them and not imposed

by production organizations (UNESCO, 1977).

The second type is feedback access is where the focus is on interactions between

producers and audiences, in this case the community radio and the community. This

feedback entails ―direct participation by the audience during transmission of

programmes‖ including the right to comment and criticize. It further entails the means of

keeping in touch with ―procedure, administrators and managers of communication

organizations‖ (UNESCO, 1977, p. 4). Access therefore means that community members

have a platform for all manner of individual and collective self-expression.

Participation

Participation includes the involvement of the public in the production process,

management and planning of communication systems (UNESCO, 1977). It operates at the

levels of production, decision making and planning. Production involves opportunities

given to the public to produce programmes, decision making entails the involvement of

the public in programming content while planning comprises the right of the public to

contribute to the formulation of plans and policies for communication, (UNESCO, 1977).

Self-management

This is the most advanced form of participation where the public exercises the

power of decision-making within communication enterprises and is fully involved in the

formulation of communication policies and plans (UNESCO, 1977).

There are distinct differences between the two approaches to participatory

communication. The UNESCO discourse includes the idea of a gradual progression

18



(Servaes & Malikhao, 2002, p. 238) where some amount of access may be allowed, but

self-management may be postponed until sometime in the future. One of the reasons the

debates looked into a progressive approach to levels of communication is primarily

because, for the UNESCO debates, ―participation is not the exclusive determinant, nor

the decisive one. What is determinant is the social system‖ (UNESCO, 1977, p. 5) which

determines the degree of participation between communities and community media.

Freire‘s theory however, leaves no room for such concession. One either ―respects the

culture of the other or falls back into domination‖ (Servaes & Malikhao, 2002, p. 238).

Another difference is that while the UNESCO discourse talks in neutral terms about ‗the

public‘ Freire talks about ‗the oppressed‘.

This would mean therefore as in the case of community radio, that if the

community audience is not fully involved in the programming and running of the station,

then they have been robbed their right to speak their word‘ and thus become oppressed.

Finally, the UNESCO discourse puts the main focus on the institution such that

community radio means a radio station that is self-managed by those participating in it

(Servaes & Malikhao, 2005, p. 97).

These approaches show the malleability of participatory communication as a

concept that has been noted to lack a definition that consequently gives its thorough

understanding (Olorunnisola, 2002, p. 132). It has also been noted that ―the most

interesting work of a participatory nature can often defy the written word‖ (Gray-Felder

(2001, p. 1). Even more to show that theories and the reality on the ground may not

necessarily coincide.

19



General Literature Review

Defining Participation and its Components

The term participation in development has been viewed as quite elusive. Hayword,

Simpson and Wood (2004) explained participation to be a ―rich concept that means

different things to different people in different settings‖ (p. 98) while Malik (1996)

described it as ―one of those catchwords whose message is advocated by everyone, but

with their own definition‖ (p. 288). Gumucio-Dagron (2001) however added that the

ambiguity of the concept of participatory communication is valuable in that it contributes

to the concept‘s constant shaping because of its ―variety and looseness‖ (p. 8).

Despite the term‘s ambiguous nature, key elements feature in defining it;

Vandervelde (1979) noted that participation should be defined as ‗the who, what, where

and how aspects of involvement‘ (p. 5). Hayword et al. (2004) added the ‗why‘ in people

participating and ‗what‘ in terms of results of participation as critical in operationalising

the term (p. 98). In the case of community radio, questions to ponder would include

finding out who is participating? How does the community participate? how does the

community radio offer opportunities to the community to participate? What are the results

of participation to both the community audience and the radio staff and also reasons as to

the community participating or not.

Penzhorn and Misibi (2010) drew their principles of participation from different

authors to include the ideas of participation as power and control where participation

means strengthening the power of the deprived majority (White, 1994). Liberation means

people attain the ability to determine the course of their own lives (Thomas, 1994) and as a

learning process where people are given the opportunity to set their own goals and

decisions so as to fully develop their potential (Ayee, 1993). Other principles of

participation include the respect for culture, education for people to be active in self and

20



communal improvements, local community, dialogue, liberation, redistribution of power

(Servaes, 2002).

Components in defining participation influence the type of participation and its

extent. In the case of community radio, the components of participation contribute to

determining whether a community radio is truly operating as a participatory medium.

Elements of participation such as power and control, liberation, decision making, dialogue,

emancipation could be seen in the relationship between the community radio and the

community in terms of operations of the radio which would be seen in the form of

participatory strategies the community radio uses to reach out to the community audience.

Mavhungu (2009) places participation to include questions on content generation,

programming, management, access and policy planning. The South African Independent

Broadcasting Authority Act (1994) considered community participation as ―active

participation of a community in respect of attendance of meetings, involvement in fund-

raising initiatives and directing the programming of the station (p. 3). A passive level of

participation would include donations and dedications on air (Mavhungu, 2009).

Types of Participatory Communication

One way of defining participation is to take account of the results of participation.

How participatory outcomes are assessed will depend to a large extent on how

participation is perceived (Hayword, Simpson, & Wood, 2005). Two broad paradigms

exist; the participation as a means to an end approach and participation as an end in itself

(Melkote & Steeves, 2001).

The theme of participation as the ‗means‘ of development sees participation as

necessary to achieve tangible outcomes, such as the diffusion and appropriation of a new

agricultural practice (Hayword et al., 2005, p. 100). In this paradigm, little appreciation is

given to the skills and knowledge that the local community could contribute to the

21



appropriateness of development (White et al., 1994). Should the community be involved,

participation as a means could also mean mobilising the community to co-operation in

development activities. According to Diaz-Bordenave, Nair, and White (1987),

participation becomes manipulative and shallow as people may not be involved in

identifying their problem or solution. Pretty (1995) provided a similar typology of

participation, ranging from manipulative participation, in which ‗participation is simply a

pretence‘, and passive participation, where ‗people participate by being told what has

been decided or has already happened‘, and consultative participation where people

participate by being consulted however external agents are under no obligation to adopt

people‘s views and in addition, define problems and make decisions (p. 1252).

Participation as an end approach recognizes participation as a basic human right to

be supported as an end to itself and not for its results. In this view, participation is the goal

of development, holding the potential to develop the capabilities of a community to

address its own issues (Hayword et al., 2005). Supporters of this approach maintain that

participation is the way in which various human development needs such as self-

expression, decision making, liberty and emancipation can be fulfilled (Diaz-Bordenave,

1989; as cited in Melkote & Steeves, 2001, p. 337; Pretty, 1995). According to Karl

(2000) participation viewed as an end ‗is a process that empowers people and

communities through acquiring skills, knowledge and experience, leading to greater self-

reliance and self-management‘. Pretty (1995) placed interactive participation as an

example of this approach where people participate in joint analysis, development of action

plans, formation or strengthening of local institutions, decision making and have a stake in

maintaining structures /practices (p. 1252).

In community radio, Pretty‘s (1995) types of participation would best reflect in

areas such as programming, content generation, self- management, decision making,

22



feedback access and dialogue. Participation types such as manipulative, passive,

consultation would represent a situation where the community radio is a dominant partner

in the radio-community relationship whereby activities such as developing programmes,

defining content, addressing community needs, and decision making in management

would be a sole function of the radio. Interactive participation types would offer

participation where the community and the community radio engage in joint dialogue to

determine participatory aspects such as development of programming content or decisions

to address development needs put forth by the community and structural decision making.

Another way of viewing participation is through the processes and values

associated with each level of participation. According to the participation framework by

Mikkelsen (1995), participation is viewed in the following ways;

1) The voluntary contribution by people in projects without them taking part in decision-making;

2) the sensitisation of people to increase their receptivity and ability to respond to development projects;

3) an active process where the person or group in question takes initiatives and asserts his/her or its autonomy to do so;

4) the fostering of a dialogue between the local people and the project preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation staff in order to obtain information on the local context and on social impacts;

5) the voluntary involvement of people in self-determined change; and 6) involvement in people‘s development themselves, their lives, their

environment. (as cited in Hayword et al., 2004, pp. 99-100)

While most community radio stations will contain elements present in the

aforementioned types of participation, the presence of all is rarely seen, particularly in

East Africa. For instance programmes may be based on development issues that affect the

people in the community, their lives and their environments, thus corresponding to

Mikkelsen‘s (1995) framework, however community members may not be involved in the

design of these programmes to address their needs and therefore participation in the

community is relegated to a passive or consultative role.

23



Such has been the case in most community radios in East Africa and Kenya where

community participation takes a passive role particularly due to donor interests (Conrad,

2014). Conrad‘s study showed that in cases where a community radio station received its

funds from an NGO, programmes sponsored by the development agencies featured content

already determined by the agency, therefore participation takes a functional approach

(Pretty, 1995) where external agencies use radio programmes as a means to achieve

project goals. And whilst people may participate maybe through interviews, their input is

to meet predetermined objectives. Such is the case with Pamoja FM‘s ―Vijana Tubonge‖

show. Whilst the show handles matters to do with youth development in health aspects

particularly sexuality and HIV, programme topics are determined by the donor sponsoring

the show (T. Ochieng, personal communication, September 11, 2015).

Historical Contexts of Participatory Community Radio

From its early development, the potential of radio as an avenue of creating two

way communication had been considered with a recognition of the importance of listener

feedback (Manyozo, 2010). Early visionaries included Brecht (1927) who argued for the

social change role of radio from ―a tool for distribution to an instrument of

communication... where the listener was allowed to speak… changing normal audiences to

teachers and listeners to suppliers‖ (Manyozo, 2010; p. 2 as cited in Brecht, 1927;

Mefalopulos & Tufte, 2009, p. 9). Brecht‘s work laid ground for core participatory

communication tenets such as dialogical communication and the potential of technologies

to improve people‘s lives by ―giving them a voice‖ (Metalopulos &Tufte, 2009, p. 9).

The Latin American legacy to communication development constitutes one of the

main theoretical frameworks for communication development based on the processes of

dialogue and participation (Barranquero, 2011). The region is considered a pioneer due to

its grassroots projects aimed at articulating means for representation of communities

24



submerged in a culture of silence (Barranquero, 2011, p. 156). Its history dates from 1947

with the miners‘ radio stations in Bolivia and the educational radio schools of Sutatenza in

Colombia where communication acquired an essential role as an instrument for raising

critical consciousness (Barranquero, 2011, p. 160). The experiences reflected the people‘s

power through media in bringing change in education and fighting social injustices.

Radio Sutatenza was established in 1947 in Colombia and is considered the first

developing world community radio station that embodied a community-development

orientation (Girard 2007; Manyozo, 2010). It was established as an education initiative by

catholic priest Joaquin Salcedo, who was driven by the need to develop peasants through

education (Jallov, 2012). Education broadcasts covered topics from literacy, health,

farming to sports and leisure. Participatory strategies included the use of informal radio

schools (small listening groups) that met each evening to discuss issues in the programmes

that affected the community. The listening groups were assisted by persons more

experienced than the local community members and had an enrolment of 200,000 peasants

in 20,000 radio groups (Fraser & Estrada, 2001, p. 13).

According to Manyozo (2010), stations that follow the Sutatenza model are located

in a community, but for sustainability purposes are owned by local organizations or

individuals. In modern day definitions, Radio Sutatenza has been critiqued for not fitting

key participatory tenets of a community radio station, particularly notions of self-

management (UNESCO, 1977) and ownership. According to Hopke (as cited in Sanchez,

1989) independence was curtailed by ―a moralistic and paternalistic tone on the part of

Catholic stations that downplayed the ability of rural communities to form opinions and

act as decision-makers‖ (p. 59). Manyozo (2010) however argued that although managerial

ownership was not in the hands of the communities, ownership was shared

25



through access ... ―with strategic programming for empowerment… capabilities that are

lacking in most of the ―authentic‖ community broadcasters today‖ (p. 5).

The second major historical moment for participatory radio in Latin America was

the miners‘ stations in Bolivia. The Bolivian experience rose in 1949 initiated by the

Union Federation of Bolivian Mine Workers as a response to appalling conditions of tin

miners (Fraser & Estrada, 2001, p. 12). The station was a voice against economic and

cultural exploitation of the working class by the mining oligarchies‖ (Barranquero, 2011,

p. 159).

According to Beltrán (1996), the radio functioned as ―horizontal, participatory

space for workers and their families to air concerns, discuss issues, and come to collective

decisions (p. 9). In terms of station management and programming, Gumucio-Dagron

(2001) stated they were ―independent, self-sustained, self-managed … served the

interests of their communities‖ and were ―planned and conceived by the miners‖ (pp. 46–

47). Estrada and Fraser (2001) however noted in most cases ―management and

programming was in the hands of the unions with little participation from the miners in the

kind of programming that would be promoted by community radio today‖ (p. 12).

Manyozo (2010) defined the Miner‘s radio as a Community-owned participatory

radio, as the most popular model of community broadcasting. These Latin American

experiences have come to form prevalent models of community radio broadcasting in

Africa (Manyozo, 2010). This study sought to explore where Pamoja FM falls with

reference to its participatory nature, through finding out its participatory strategies toward

the community.

Community Radio as Participatory Media

Fairbairn (2009) found that there is agreement on four principles that form pillars

of community broadcasting: Community ownership and control, community participation,

26



community service and a not-for-profit business model (p. 7). Out of the four, he termed

participation as the key defining feature of community media ―which places community

media outside of traditional media models, in which audiences are passive receivers of

messages‖ (p. 9). Fairbairn (2009) distinguished meaningful participation from less

meaningful participation like call ins; to include activities such as ―involvement in the

station‘s governance structures, consultation on programme topics and formats, training,

the production and distribution of programmes, audience research, and finance‖ (p. 9).

Nonetheless he noted that application to these principles ―varies depending on local and

national contexts‖ (p. 7).

These varying concepts of community media have caused debate and criticism

around development communication scholarship that find concepts of media and

participation detached from the reality on the ground (Fairchild, 2010). According to

Conrad (2014) studies have criticised a tendency among media scholars to lift theorised

concepts as constructed in the West, and their direct applications to conditions elsewhere

in the world. Berger (1996) argued that community participation through the owned and

controlled by the community criterion is unrealistic and short-lived. He further noted that

such misunderstandings arose because discussions of media development and participation

were often conducted away from the actual contexts in which they operated (Berger,

2010).

The Community Radio manual (1999) however suggested that there can be no

fixed formula to community participation as each community is different and should

determine its terms for participation in the context of existing practice and legislation.

These arguments present the diverse interpretations of community radio and its

participatory elements in practice across Africa and the world.

27



The various interpretations of participation in community radio similarly reflect in

Kenya. Contributing to this variation are broadcasting policies that do not clearly define

what participation is and how it should be implemented. For instance, the revised Kenya

Communications Act (2008) included a definition of community broadcasting that

emphasises the involvement of community members in the production of programs

(Kenya, 2009) but does not state how this involvement should be. Similarly, the revised

Act outlined requirements for a community broadcasting service to be where community

members participate in the selection and provision of programmes; are represented in the

management, have a reasonable opportunity to serve in management and have a way of

making their preferences known in the selection and provision of programmes (Kenya

Information and Communications Act, 2012). Whilst these requirements apply to tenets of

participation such as feedback access, management and ownership, it is not clearly

stipulated how this participation can be carried out leaving it to the interpretation of a

specific community radio and its community.

According to Javuru (2011), cases of participation through community radio vary

across East Africa‘s media space. In the case of urban community radio stations in Kenya,

like Ghetto FM, Pamoja FM and Koch FM ―participation involves community members

volunteering to present programs while other stations like Mama FM, Radio Apac in

Uganda- and Sengerema FM in Tanzania perceive community participation as a wider

consultative process with the community‖ (Javuru, 2011, p. 7). However, Manyozo (2009)

argued that, while communities are given control of the technological aspects of

broadcasting, access to their own community is always ―mediated and negotiated through

donor funding‖ (p. 9). For instance, Keefer and Khemani (2011) found that economic

interests, and not local preferences, drove decisions on community radio content as

28



shortage in commercial advertising led community stations to sell their broadcasting time

to donors interested in reaching their audience.

Javuru (2011) posited that community radio stations in East Africa heavily rely on

donor funds which limit the long term planning of the station (p. 8). Pamoja FM receives

funding from various organizations such as USAID, Radio France International, Centers

for Disease Control (Conrad, 2014) which leads the community to assume a passive,

recipient role in the communication process in the hope that the donor will sustain the

station thus leading to a lower ownership sense (p. 785). Another study on Pamoja FM

revealed the since the community could not fund the station, ownership struggles emerged

as the station led to a reliance on international donors for support (A. Hussein, personal

communication, August 27, 2010; as cited in Conrad, 2011, p. 135).

Community radio and its participatory role therefore remains an area that needs

further review in the alignment of academic theory and applications on the ground.

Knowing the current participatory strategies used and the hearing form the voice of the

community on how much the station can involve them will help build on the Pamoja FM‘s

participatory potential.

Empirical Studies on Participation in Community Radio

Conrad (2014) carried out an exploratory study to gauge the implications of donor

funding on the participatory ethos of community radio. 64 in-depth interviews were

conducted in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania and six community radio stations were

selected due to their geographic and audience diversity. The stations were Koch FM,

Mama FM, Mlimani Community Radio, ORS FM, Pamoja FM and Radio Mang‘elete.

The study revealed that donor funding limits participation by causing some

communities to assume recipient roles in the communication process through limiting the

community‘s ownership, management and independent content production. The study

29



concluded that foreign donor priorities significantly dictate station content and decision-

making processes, elements that are a part of community participation. Stations such as

Pamoja FM were greatly influenced by this and in an interview with the station‘s manager

and founder revealed that station and donor relationship was mutually beneficial to both

parties as the donors would get their programmes aired while the station would benefit

from the pay. The results of this study are important not only because it significantly

contributes to understanding the dynamics of external community radio financing and its

effects on community participation. The study however doesn‘t address the nature of

participation between the community and the community radio.

Mhlanga‘s (2010, 2006) study on Community Radio as Dialogic and Participatory

offered a critical analysis of governance, control and community participation in XK FM;

a South African community radio for the !Xû and Khwe ethnic communities. The study

concluded that XK FM did not operate on the strict sense as a community radio in terms of

participation. Questions on community participation XK FM revealed a need for

community participation. Among the Xû community, twenty-eight stated there is need for

community participation while five disagreed; For the Khwe twenty-five agreed, while

five disagreed.

Respondents were required to rate the levels of community participation in the

operation and programming of XK FM; responses from the Xû community saw 11% say

community participation is very-high, with 40% high, 26% moderate, 18% low and 5%

very-low. The response from the Khwe showed that 26% said community participation is

very-high, with 55% saying high, 16% moderate, nil for low and 3% very-low. An

analysis of the views showed a sizable number of people believed that participation was

very high however, combined figures for the !Xu moderate to very low responses,

obtained a total of 49% respondents who felt that the participation is not adequate hence

30



almost half of the people interviewed felt the need for participation. On the question of

control (ownership) and participation in running of XK FM by the community; among the

Xû 71% agreed to have the community exercising complete control in running XK FM,

26% disagreeing. Responses from the Khwe showed that 18 (48%) agreed to having the

community exercise complete control in the running of XK FM. Only fifteen (39%)

disagreed while five (13%) gave no responses. This shows respondents did not have a

clear understanding of what participation entails.

Mhlanga‘s study was important to the current study in that it explored the concept

of community participation in community radio wholesomely. It not only described the

current state of community radio as participatory, but also sought the opinion and thoughts

of the communities with regard to the potential nature of participation, an exploration this

study sought to do as well. Mhlanga‘s study is also relevant to this study as it dissected

participation in its various components through programming, access, management,

ownership, content generation and this expands the exploration of participatory

communication in the study. The study also looked into the definition of participation, an

elusive term. The conflicting responses through data collected particularly with regard to

control and ownership in participation, where actual practise and community responses

conflicted, showed the need for clear definition and understanding of participation.

Summary

This chapter has peered into the available literature relevant to the area of

community radio as a participatory medium. This includes the introduction, approaches of

participatory development communication, a historical and current perspective of

community radio as a participatory medium in development and empirical studies relevant

to this research. The next chapter will looked into the methodology.

31



CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter focused on research patterns that informed the study and methods the

researcher used to gather data. It discussed the research design, population, sampling size

and technique, data collection procedures and the data analysis methods used.

The study primarily took on a qualitative approach. This approach is conducted to

understand opinions, uncover meanings, knowledge and subjective interpretations from

participants‘ view, understand social interactions and provide depth, detail and context to

research issues (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The study

called for this approach as the researcher sought to discover and understand a phenomenon

and a process, in this case, participation. The researcher sought the interpretations,

understandings, meanings and experiences of participation from the perspective of the

study participants from Kibera community and Pamoja FM staff.

Qualitative research also enabled the researcher to study the natural setting of the

participants thus an opportunity to understand the ―contextual influences on the research

issues‖ (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 9), in this case participation. The practice of participation

within the setting of Kibera could be influenced by several factors that may influence

participatory strategies used by Pamoja FM. Qualitative approaches to data collection such

as observation, in-depth interviews and Focus Group Discussions enabled the researcher to

delve deeper into these influences. This approach further ―seeks to explore why local

knowledge and known theoretical practice are at odds‖ (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). This

was favourable and relevant to the study because it offered an opportunity for the

researcher to explore beyond the transcription of a stated theory and into the broader

community influences that shaped various perceptions.

32



Research Design

A research design is a ―procedural plan‖ adopted by the researcher to generate

answers to the research questions ―validly, objectively, accurately and economically‖

(Kumar, 2011, p. 94) in a manner that ―aims to combine relevance with the research

purpose‖ (Kombo & Tromp, 2009, p. 70). To answer the research questions of this study,

the descriptive research design was used. Kombo and Tromp (2009) described the major

purpose of the descriptive research as providing the ―description of the state of affairs as

it is‖ (p. 71). The choice of this design was therefore guided by its ability to describe the

state of participation between Pamoja FM as a participatory medium of communication in

Kibera and its current use of participatory approaches to communicate.

As descriptive design is also used to collect information about people‘s attitudes,

opinions and habits (Orodho & Kombo, 2002) the study aimed at collecting information

from respondents on their attitudes, opinions and experiences on participation beginning

with their understanding of the term, opinions about the practice of participation in terms

of the participatory communication strategies Pamoja FM used and also examined the

participatory experiences of the Kibera community audience.

Population

As a population refers to the larger group from which the sample is taken (Kombo

& Tromp, 2009) the population of this study encompassed the inhabitants within Kibera

informal settlement in Nairobi County. Kibera informal settlement measures roughly 2.5

square kilometres with an estimated population of 170,000 – 270,000 people (KNBS,

2009; Marras, 2008). It comprises13 villages; Makina, Kichinjio, Mashimoni, Kambi

Muru, Kisumu Ndogo, Gatwekera, Raila, Soweto West, Soweto East, Kianda, Shilanga,

Lindi and Laini Saba ((Ekdale, 2014; Mutisya & Yarime, 2011, p. 203).

33



The choice of Kibera informal settlement was purposive; influenced by the fact that it had

an organised administrative structure, ample scholarly information on it and the

researcher‘s rapport with key informants to the study enabled easier access to information.

Target Population

Target population of this study comprised Community Radio listeners, radio

managers, producers, volunteers/ interns and presenters of Pamoja FM. The researcher

purposively targeted participants that were active listeners of the station to present a target

conversant in addressing the research questions. Part of this target was drawn from a

listener group; essentially a voluntary set of avid Pamoja FM listeners. The use of the

listener group was influenced by the fact that Pamoja FM had no listener database (A.

Hussein, personal communication, November 6, 2015). The group meets quarterly to

discuss general matters about the radio and also present the station with information or

issues arising from within various villages in Kibera, it consists of about 200 members and

is headed by a chairman. The researcher interviewed a section of this group and ensured

the group haboured representation of inhabitants from majority 13 villages as this would

have contributed to diverse experiences from various regions.

Other targets included children and youth. Children were selected from Nazarene

school in Kibera as the children there had participated most times in the station‘s debate

show and had a greater listenership of the radio. Youth were selected from various villages

with the help of a presenter based on the active participation they had on the show. The

selection was aided by two specific presenters in Pamoja FM whose shows pulled

audiences from these two groups.

Sample Size

In a qualitative study, the common agreement is that the number of participants is

often small. The small sample is justified by the fact that since the areas of interest is in

34



the depth of information, ―a large number of participants are neither practical nor

beneficial‖ (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 88). According to Kumar (2011) ―if the sample can

be selected carefully, diversity can be extensively and accurately described on the basis of

information obtained from even one individual‖ (p. 212). According to Guest, Namey and

Mitchell 2013; as cited in Bertaux, 1981), Bertaux posited that the ―smallest acceptable

population in qualitative sampling is a population of 15‖ (p. 58).

The researcher was further influenced by Hennink et al. (2011) suggestion that the

sample size can be based on previous similar studies. Lemi (2013) carried out a qualitative

research on the role of community radio in community development featuring Radio

Miraya in Gumbo, South Sudan; 60 participants were selected justified by the fact that

―they reflected segments of the Gumbo population‖ (p. 36). The sample of this study was

60 participants, drawn from Pamoja FM‘s staff/ management, listener group, youth and

children.

Sampling techniques

A sample technique is a definite procedure for obtaining a sample (individuals or

objects) from a given population (Kothari & Garg, 2014). In qualitative research, sampling

decisions are based on the researcher‘s ―judgement as to who is likely to provide the best

information‖ (Kumar, 2011, p. 213). This research was based on a purposive recruitment of

participants. The researcher purposively targeted participants who bore specific

experiences that contributed richly to the study‘s objectives such as participants who were

active listeners to the station and who had lived in Kibera for a considerably long time.

Through stratified purposeful sampling, characteristics of particular sub groups of

interest were looked into which included groups segmented by age and role. The four

35



groups were: adults (15), children (15), youth (15) and Pamoja FM staff and management

(15).

Data Collection Instruments

Data for this study was generated through face-to face in-depth interviews, Focus

Group Discussions (FGDs) and Observation. Since the purpose of this study was to

explore Pamoja FM as a participatory medium in Kibera, instruments that would facilitate

the in-depth mining of this exploration influenced the researcher‘s choices. Through FGDs

and in-depth interviewing, information to understand meanings, perceptions, experiences

and relationships of participation between the community and Pamoja FM were sought.

Observation aided in accessing ―nuanced information‖ (Henninck et al., 2011, p. 174) that

the researcher may probably not have gotten through interviews.

Focus Group Discussions

A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is an interactive discussion between selected

participants, led by a facilitator that produces verbal data (Millward, 2012). FGDs aim to

build conversation among participants themselves with the ‗interaction element‘

considered vital to generating information (Morgan, 2010). This technique thus allowed

the researcher to explore unanticipated issues as they arose and sought diverse views on

these issues (Henninck et al., 2011; Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

It enabled the researcher to gain various views on meanings, perceptions and

experiences of participation from both the community audience and station. The

information generated lead to addressing research questions on the meaning of

participation from the perspective of the community and the question on how both the

community audience and Pamoja FM staff participated in the running of the station; here

the researcher focussed on key participatory tenets such as access, feedback, dialogue,

management. Focus group on community participants spoke to the experiences of

36



community listener participation and interaction such as in, programming, content

generation and points of improvement for Pamoja FMs participatory efforts.

Group homogeneity was achieved through age classifications. The researcher saw

no need to divide the groups on gender lines as the topic of study was not sensitive as it

merely caught on radio experiences and participation. The researcher aimed to recruit

participants with less levels of familiarity by selecting them from different villages as

anonymity between participants encouraged free participation (Henninck et al., 2011).

Recruitment of participants was with the help of the chair of the station‘s listener

group. The researcher and the chair of the group met together and jointly discussed on the

criteria to use for electing participants. It was decided that the most active listener group

members would be recruited for the study and this was followed by making calls to the

members to explain the study and confirm their attendance. For the children and youth,

recruitment was with the help of Pamoja FM presenters who worked with the researcher to

recruit active listeners. Participants were recruited into four FGDs and segmented into

adults (31-50 years), youth (18-25 years) and school going children of upper primary level

(10-16 years). The discussions were carried out at different villages within Kibera.

The researcher recruited two research assistants (RAs) who helped with the data

collection and analysis. The RAs were recruited on the basis of fluency in Kiswahili and

English, familiarity with Kibera and proficiency in qualitative data collection and analysis

techniques. Before collecting data, the RAs were trained on the purpose and objectives of

the study, the methods of data collection and how to establish rapport with the

participants. Data was collected through a digital audio recorder that was operated by the

RA. The researcher requested for permission to record the discussion but was prepared to

take detailed notes had the recording been uncomfortable to the participants. The principle

researcher moderated the FGD.

37



In-depth Interviewing

An in-depth interview involves an interviewer and interviewee discussing topics of

―mutual interest‖ in depth for the ―construction of knowledge‖ (Kvale & Brinkmann,

2009, p. 2). Its explorative ability leads the researcher to gain details in ―experiences,

motives and opinions of others‘ thus learning to see the world apart from their own view

(Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 3).

In this study the researcher sought meanings and perspectives attached to

participation also from the Pamoja FM staff and management. The in-depth interviews

with on-air and programming staff sought to establish how they produced and presented

their programmes and feedback mechanisms in place for their programmes. The researcher

used a semi structured approach to interviewing for the flexibility it provided. The study

had six in-depth interviews. Two interviews were held with the founder and Managing

Director of Pamoja FM and the Head of Programming. The other four interviews were

held with on-air presenters/ producers of shows that targeted the two largest groups in

Kibera, the youth and the children.

Types of Data

The study employed primary and secondary data. Primary data was obtained through

information from in depth interviews, FGDs and observations. Secondary data was gained

through documentation such as Pamoja FM‘s editorial policies, programme schedules,

mission and vision statements and population figures from government sources. Data

Collection Procedures

To facilitate the FGD, the researcher developed a discussion guide with a list of

open ended questions. The guide included; an introduction, opening, transitioning

questions and closing questions (Henninck et al., (2011). The researcher introduced herself

and the research assistant then provided information about the study and explained

38



how the discussion would be conducted. Opening questions were asked to break ground,

transition questions facilitated the changeover to key topic areas; key questions generated

discussion on key areas of the study. The closing questions facilitated the conclusion of

the discussion. Audio equipment was used and handled by the RA.

The researcher used a question guide for the in depth interviews. The guide was

segmented into topics that were in tandem with the research objectives of the study.

The researcher used a field guide for observation. Observation was in the form of

questions (Wilson, 2005) where questions were used to guide the researcher on

observations to note. Activities related to participation will be noted in a field diary.

Pretesting

The researcher pretested the data collection instruments. One FGD was conducted

by listeners from Mtanii FM in Kawangware informal settlement. The researcher then

debriefed participants by soliciting their assessment of the clarity of the instrument. The

researcher reconstructed some questions for clarity of the data collection instrument.

Data Analysis Plan

The researcher analysed the data into themes that emerged. Bailey (2007) defined

themes as ―recurring patterns, topics, viewpoints, emotions, concepts, events that result

from things researchers have heard over and over again‖ (p. 153). A theme captures

something about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of

patterned response or meaning within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82).Thematic

content analysis was used to code and interpret data. The texts were read for

familiarisation, categorised into themes and presented as narratives.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues that would have arisen from participant observation would have

centred on the principle of respect for persons. The researcher ensured that the participants

39



were aware they were being observed and ensured they agreed to it. The researcher further

acquired an introductory letter from Daystar University. Ethical issues that would have

arisen from the FGDs would come from ―dynamics of power and influence‖ (Marshall &

Rossman, 2011, p. 150) where one participant would have sought to overpower the rest.

The researcher mitigated this by encouraging other participants to voice their opinion.

Ethical issues that could have arisen in interviewing included informed consent in

recording interviews with the station staff and management. The researcher verbally

explained why she needed to record the interview and asked for permission before

recording. A consent form was prepared for the children in the FGD. The researcher

assured participants that the information provided would be used confidentially.

Summary

This chapter summarised the methodology of the study by outlining the research

design, population, sampling procedures, data collection tools and procedures, pretesting

of the questionnaire, and ethical consideration. The study took a qualitative approach

under the descriptive design, since the researcher sought the experiences and meanings of

community participation in the context of a social setting (Kibera slum).

The target population was the Pamoja FM listener group and Pamoja

staff/management. Data collection was through in depth interviews that gained individual

meanings and experiences of Pamoja FM management; FGDs that gained community

perspectives and participant observation that gained the researcher‘s view. Ethical

considerations were factored such as full disclosure of researcher‘s aims while observing,

confidentiality and handling power dynamics in FGDs. An analysis of data collection was

provided in the next chapter.

40



CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Introduction

This chapter presented the analysis and interpretation of data collected from

participants in the study through the use of interviews and Focus Group Discussions. The

study covered participants from ten villages within Kibera; Lindi, Laini Saba, Makina,

Gatwikira, Raila, Shilanga, Kisumu Ndogo, Soweto, Otiende, and Kibera. The sample size

of the study was 60 participants however the study gathered a response of 56 participants

thus a 93% response rate. Six participants were interviewed from Pamoja FM; four staff

(presenters) and two from the management (Founder and Head of programming). For

purposes of anonymising participants, the study used pseudonyms for each participant.

Presenter responses were labelled as ―Pamoja FM presenter‖ while responses from the

founder and head of programming as ―Pamoja FM management.‖

Fifty participants took part in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Four FGDs were

conducted in four different villages: Shilanga, Lindi, DC and Kianda. The FGDs

comprised ten members of the community listener group who in this study went under the

label Adult FGD, one youth FGD in Lindi village that comprised 13 participants, one

youth FGD in Shilanga village that comprised ten participants and one FGD at Kianda

village that targeted 17 children from Nazarene primary school.

The interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated verbatim into textual data

in the form of written transcripts. Transcription notes were then analysed through NVivo

software following a thematic framework.

Analysis and Interpretation

The analysis primarily took on both a deductive and inductive approach to

grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The researcher coded for themes identified a

41



priori from topics in the interview guides that were derived from theory in the research

literature (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 218). Inductive themes were obtained from issues that

were raised by the participants. Grounded theory approaches were conducted, where data

was free coded according to text from the transcripts (Charmaz, 2003). This allowed for

the researcher to have a grounding of the data. Initial open coding was subjected to axial

coding as outlined by Strauss & Corbin (1998) for relating categories to sub categories.

The researcher started getting deeper into the data to identify relationships in the data.

Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) posited that the basic principle in presenting results

is to give all the evidence relevant to the research objectives and questions. The study

sought to answer the following questions:

1) What was the understanding of the term ‗participation‘ from the perspective of

Pamoja FM staff and Kibera community?

2) What participatory communication strategies did Pamoja FM use to involve the

Kibera community including community participation through dialogue, access,

management, content development and programming?

3) What were the existing gaps between participatory theory and actual practice of

participatory communication with regard to dialogue, participation, access,

management of Pamoja FM?

Understanding Participation

The researcher observed an evident hesitation in participants responding to this

question. There were moments in some group discussions, of silence after the question

was asked particularly with the Youth FGD in Shilanga village and the children‘s FGD.

But after the researcher probed further, responses emerged. Participation was initially

described in broad terms describing general involvement:

Participation means co-operation... with the people specifically in the community

(Tom, Children FGD)

42



To me participation is all about engagement. For example if you are having a page

on FB and on your own wall, if you post something and ask a question and people

are answering people are participating in that discussion. (Peter, Pamoja FM

Staff)

Participation is basically to be involved positively with what the station is doing. If

there's anything positive they are doing… even us we should be engaged with them. (Musa, Youth Lindi FGD)

When the researcher probed on the question of what participation involved,

participants opened up more in their descriptions. In terms of actors involved, participants

expressed that participation should be between community and radio however initiated and

propelled from the community radio first:

You give I give that's participation. In the case of CR, it should be different, they

should give fully, yes we should give but ours I can say partially, but they should

give fully of themselves to the community because we have put them there to

represent us, so it should be that there percentage of giving should be higher in

them than in us. (Fred, Youth FGD Shilanga)

The initiative has to come from this end first, they have to go, even if we'll say

every month we'll be doing live on air on location, maybe one Saturday of the

month we say we'll be going out meet the people talk to the people and let them just

talk about the medium, „do you like our programming? Do you like how we do our

news? What are the missing elements in our programming? So that they'll feel like

we are also being involved. (Andrew, Pamoja FM Radio staff)

One participant from the management viewed participation to involve the station‘s liaisons

with Community Based Organisations (CBOs) “there are many CBOs in Kibera, we need

to participate with them, when they‟re doing something, they involve us so that when we

participate with them it will be easy for those who don't know them, they will know them”

(Abraham, Pamoja FM management).

In terms of what participation entailed, ―Noah‖ a participant from the management

revealed it needed to be based on a deep level of engagement that would involve ―allowing

people to take part in your planning maybe, in your daily operations, in your

programming, or having some time also to take part in our discussion.” Community

43



participants highlighted the importance of the community in providing content, feedback

and solutions to problems.

If its debates we participate, if its programmes of music we need to be the ones to

request the music and if there are any errors in the studio we find a way in which

we can get the management and tell them at this point we need you to improve in

this and that way. (Juma, Adults FGD).

Another way is participating in those issues they organise. You can find that they

want to eradicate rape, events they organise then we come together and participate

and are explained to the issues and how to handle them. (Musa, Youth FGD-

Lindi)

One staff participant described participation to include a shared ideological accord

between the community and the community radio:

They need to be in harmony in terms of the same ideas, a common goal like why

this medium is here to serve us so that from the team of the medium, they need to

understand the community and also the community need to understand this is the

objective of the media house, this is how they work; so that if it is in participation

both sides are on the same level they know these are the roles of the medium and

the media house will know this is the role of the community. (Andrew, Pamoja FM

staff)

When asked on the state of participation, participants were of the view that

currently it had gone low with various reasons. Participants of the Community Listener

Group (CLG) noted “I think there are problems, those days I would pass in the morning

and hear radios playing Pamoja FM, now I pass only one person listening in the morning

I‟m wondering where are all those people, more than 10 gone to?” (Baraka, Adult FGD).

For me I will say, many of them do not. Why? Because the station itself, yes we

love it, but it is as if it has challenges of its own there. When you call the line, you

find it is always engaged with one person, and if it goes through, you as the caller

cannot hear the presenter in the studio such problems you lose heart to call again.

(Juma, Adult FGD)

(Uuum) Yes, they actively participate though in the recent let me say a year or so,

it has not been as good as when it started… the main problem last year is that there was mass exodus of the reporters and presenters, that was a big blow... some

became passive, those who used to call no longer called those who used to SMS

are not sending SMS. (James, Pamoja FM Staff)

44



The lack of community radio engagement with the people was termed as a major

deterrent to participation:

They don't do enough maybe in their own shows, but now you'll find to interact

with the youth and come up to into the village, you'll see that some are probably

afraid, they see that maybe if I go there those boys will snatch my phone. (Musa,

Youth FGD-Lindi).

Youth participants were of the opinion that Pamoja FM focused on the upper, more

affluent regions of Kibera and failed to engage audiences from less affluent yet more

needy parts ―at this point they have done more, what they haven't done is they haven't

reached out to the right audience, because you want to tell me that the issues that affect

the ghetto are only in the upsides only?” (Simon, Youth FGD-Lindi).

“Another way they can improve in participation is that the station should work with

people, should work with us, you find that crime rate has increased, and not up there, if we

are to name its Lindi and Shilanga” (Marcos, Youth FGD- Lindi). They explained these

experiences as a hindrance to their participation.

Language was considered a deterrent to participation. One staff mentioned that the

strict use of pure Kiswahili language on air and in social media limited community

participation particularly among the youth “if you want to allow people participate, speak

in their language the question you ask and how you ask will make me answer it”(Peter,

Pamoja FM staff). This was contrasted with the community listener group participants

who expressed their displeasure with the language used by some presenters. “The

language used, an old person listening with his children and family, would not want to

continue tuning in. You will leave that station and tune in to another station” (Juma, Adult

FGD).

Views from the all Pamoja FM staff felt the station could do more to engage the

community. “If somebody is managing the station without involving the community at

large that‟s a problem. Community is also not following up on how the station is

45



managed, that‟s a problem, there's a disconnect I think that's the best word” (James,

Pamoja FM staff).

Another reason the community does not participate is because the Pamoja

management are reluctant on expanding their activities. First of all the Pamoja

management should walk in every section in Kibera... because we don‟t get a chance to mingle with the people, we cannot tell how they feel. (John, Pamoja FM

Staff)

I think there is a laxity also in the management maybe they need to do more of

community outreach to go out there and reach out to the community so that they

also feel like they are participating more. (Andrew, Pamoja FM Staff)

Participatory communication Strategies

The study identified a range of participatory communication strategies that had

been put in place by Pamoja FM to involve the community. The following section looks at

the themes of access, dialogue, participation (content development and programming) and

self-management as outlined in the objective.

Access

From observation, the researcher noted that Pamoja FM is located in the upper

regions of Kibera, in Olympic village. It is approximately a three minute walk from the

stage to the studio location. People around there are quite familiar with the station and one

can be guided if direction is needed. The station is within an Olympic estate and is hosted

in a maisonette type house. The gate to the station is always open and one can easily walk

in. Once inside, there is a waiting area with a sofa set at the outer court. There is no

receptionist and so once inside it is up to the guest to find their way to the offices. There is

one main door that leads to the office, it is an open plan set up where interns, news editors

sit to prepare for news; presenters normally come in before their show begins and go

straight to the studio. There are stairs that lead to the second storey of the house where the

main studio and the management office are. The ambience is free and intermittently busy.

46



The researcher rarely noticed guests visiting the station for the time spent there and also

rarely did the staff tune in to the station while working.

On the question of how accessible the participants found the station; children

found it easily accessible with some describing the station as “cool and fresh” (Mercy,

Children FGD) and that “it welcomes everyone” (Henry, Children FGD). All CLG

participants had visited the station as they mentioned they held their meetings there.

When the youth were asked whether they found the station accessible most had never

visited the station or knew its location however one found it accessible.

Q: any of you have ever visited the Pamoja FM studios? acc (How do you

find its location..is it easy to reach? (no response)

Response unison: (Laughter).. no. (Youth FGD Lindi)

I don't even know where they are. (Jonah, Youth FGD Shilanga)

I have never gone. (David, Youth FGD Shilanga)

I used to pass there but it's not there anymore, it moved to Olympic. (Njoro, Youth FGD, Lindi

It is accessible and secure. (Simon, Youth FGD Lindi)

There was the notion among the youth that they needed to have been invited by the station

for them to go; “You just can't go like that to the station without being called, you must be

invited or given an invitation letter how will you pass there” (Rocky, Youth FGD

Shilanga). Their reservations were coupled by the opinion of the fear of how they would

be perceived. One youth participant explained;

You cannot enter somebody's boma without being invited. Maybe from today I can.

But those other days I felt as if, they themselves have never come to tell us that this

is ours, when you go somebody looks at the way you dress and thinks this one can

steal my laptop. I felt I didn‟t belong that's why I didn't go there. (Slim, Youth

FGD Lindi)

47



One staff participant echoed the youth sentiments on the need of the station to welcome

people:

Right now it is very accessible only that I don't think people should be coming, it is

the radio which should be going to make sure these people will be coming; you

should tell the people why they need to come to you, if you don't tell them that

personally I don't see why I should have a reason to go there. This is someone who

has not welcomed me. (Peter, Pamoja FM staff).

On the question on whether the participants felt they could access communication

material and select programmes, participants felt that they were not offered opportunity to

get involved in the selection of communication material within the station programmes.

Some participants from the listener group were of the opinion that the station presenters

were apathetic to the listeners in involving them in their programmes; “if you do not call,

he will not give you a chance and think there's somebody out there who would like to

contribute on some things. That has made many people see they are not being involved in

the station” (Mali, Adults FGD). Members of the listener group also felt that the

presenters ran the shows differently from how they did previously, in a way that limited

opportunities for the community involvement:

The only programme remaining that I can say has a lot of listenership is the

morning one and it's because of the debates, another one is the reggae show. But

now Taarab, the people who host the show are just mixing everything up, when it

comes to the Machweo show, the people there are doing their own thing; they now

play music, and before, the understanding was I as the listener requests the song

and it is played, even there was supposed to be an opportunity or an allotted time

for me to greet my friends on air. (Juma, Adult FGD)

The youth particularly felt excluded from transmission due to the neglect of

mentions being done to them as they felt the station offered more attention to certain areas

than others; one youth participant mentioned:

Because the radio station is up there, then they focus up there, I mean they do not

understand that we too listen down here, they have put their minds to those people

in Makina or Olympic they don't know that here in Undugu we are listening...He

should know that we are all here, and to include us in the addressing. (Kali, Youth

FGD Shilanga

48



However there was the opinion from one station staff that it was up to the community to

interact with the presenters for them to get the attention they sought; “when they feel the

station belongs to a certain section it‟s because that part is participating a lot and you at

home listen passively, you will see as if the station represents those people from that side

more” (John, Pamoja FM staff).

Participants appreciated other content of materials being transmitted, particularly

musical content where the youth enjoyed the reggae music and the older ones Taarab

music. One area where the community felt fully satisfied with their requests being

addressed was in community announcements of missing children which were noted to

bring a positive impact to the community. Children participants appeared very content;

most stated they had visited the station, participated in the show as guests or contributed

on air and were content with their involvement in the transmission of programs and the

opportunity given to them to select the material they needed.

Feedback

The main avenues of giving feedback were through calls, Short Message Service

(SMS), social media through twitter and Facebook - individual presenter and common

group pages such as „Kiberanikwetu‟, roadside chats with presenters and radio

management and office visits. The researcher observed the station‘s twitter handle did not

have much traffic. When participants asked on how they viewed the feedback processes,

most felt more feedback avenues could be included “Pamoja FM should have a reception,

it used to have back then, where somebody would have a problem, they come and write it

down and something like a suggestion box, it used to be there in 2007” (John, Pamoja FM

staff).

49



“They should have youth ambassadors from every locality in Kibera” (Simon, Youth

FGD Lindi).

The issue of faulty call lines was viewed as limiting feedback. Community listener

group participants complained about faulty lines and jammed lines as a deterrent to

feedback “The first thing is through this phone line, I have told them to bring three lines,

this one line is not working” (Baraka, Adult FGD).

“Even I called them one day and told them if it‟s too hard let‟s call a harambee as

community listeners we buy a phone, I have never heard them say anything” (Mali, Adult

FGD).

Participants also expressed difficulty in accessing presenters to provide feedback

and although few were mentioned as accessible, there was the view that their role was

limited, “the problem is getting the people there…the only person you can get is [John]

only and for him, when he goes there he knows his only job is to arrange the playlist, he

cannot interfere with such things” (Kali, Youth FGD Shilanga). There was the expression

that the mutual engagement between the community radio and the community particularly

in terms of contributing opinions, commenting or criticising had waned over time:

I as the listener, that presenter, and the owner of the station, we co-operate, right?

But then I ask, if those people at the station themselves do not want me to speak my

opinions, they do not act on it, is there a reason for me to work with them?

Because if I have already released my laments, and yet they are not being taken in,

it is not being improved, is there any need for me to be called to participate? Isn‟t it better for me to get myself out? (Juma, Adult FGD)

On the question of feedback in terms of keeping in touch with the management of

the station, the youth, expressed reluctance to associate with the management as they felt

the station belonged to a special select, ―It's not that we don't know it‟s ours we know in

brackets. Because there is a family, or a group of people that own Pamoja FM… it's as if

it's there‟s and not ours. But it's supposed to be ours” (Musa, Youth FGD Lindi).

50



Participants in the listener group admitted a strained relationship between the

listener group and the management, “It isn‟t strong, not close, just there. Somebody says

we want this, the other responds, we„ll look at it but there needs to be strong co-operation;

presenters as well, if issues have been brought up those people should follow up”

(Rebekah, Adult FGD). The only recognition of communication between the two groups

however was seen to be through the founder of the station, who was noted to be keen on

checking on the group:

For me I can say the relationship as a community listener group member and the

station is only through Mzee. Because every time you will see him calling me, we

talk things, when we plan a meeting, if he is available, you will find him there. But

the rest of the big guys there, you will never find them in a listener meeting.

(Baraka, Adult FGD)

Participants further stated the management minimised the groups interaction with

them by ignoring meetings: “even if you would have called one here, you'll be amazed you

wouldn't even see even one of them so even themselves it is as if they are not serious with

what they are doing” (Chui, Adult FGD). There was the view that the station management

felt superior to considering their opinions; “Pamoja FM as management should respect

the fans; you see in some cases you will find the fans and management are quite different,

management at times wants to be on top and do not want to listen to the fans' opinions”

(Maria, Adult FGD).

The listener group however noted that they too had failed to interact amongst

themselves by ignoring their own meetings. The management felt they had provided the

listener group with enough space to do their things and that they took their consideration

into account and listened to them. They discussed encouraging feedback with the

community through certain procedures:

It is not something that just happens that just because it is a CR we can change

anything the way we want, no. You as the community, you know the thing is run

with its own managers so you write a letter, you bring it, it is a must people will sit

51



down and go through it so that if it is a programme change, we notify, we agree we

want to change the programme this way and that way. (Abraham, Pamoja FM

Management).

Dialogue

Under dialogue, the researcher will discuss sub themes that emerged from the

theme dialogue. Interpersonal communication and interactions with the community, issues

facing community and the synchrony of those with those broadcast by the station,

community radio in generating debate and reciprocal communication.

Interpersonal communication and community interactions

Interpersonal interactions and communication between the community and the

radio staff were described as wanting. This was expressed by both community participants

and station staff who stated the need for the station to get on the ground; one presenter was

of the opinion that the burden was on the community radio to go to the community first to

make sure the community understood the station was for them and as a prerequisite for

them to get involved. This was echoed by responses from youth participants who

maintained it was up to the station to involve the community fully; “let it be said by them

that the community is not participating but not that „we‟[station] are the ones who are not

participating. We are here, to give whatever information” (Musa, Youth FGD Lindi).

Participants in the community listener group termed the lack of interpersonal

communication between the station and the community as a major limitation of the station.

The one challenge I see is that presence from the station to the ground, for people

to know that this station is there, correspondence that sees the presenters leave the

station wearing Pamoja FM t shirts, visiting the ordinary citizens telling them this

is your station, we can announce for you, I think the greatest problem is that

awareness, if the people can be informed then this radio station can take front line.

(Chui, Adult FGD).

Most youth and children participants however acknowledged individual presenters

they had encounters with and expressed their satisfaction with those interactions. Children

participants only mentioned the host of the children‘s show and were at odds naming any

52



other staff from the station that they had met or that they knew. This was similar to the

youth.

Responses from the youth and community listener group revealed the station staff

interaction with the community on the ground had declined. Most responses suggested that

they never felt the presence of the radio staff on the ground as it had been when the radio

station first began broadcasting, ―It‟s as if they have put their shoes down but they used to

do that. Then you would even feel they know what they‟re doing but nowadays, I don't

know if it's motivation lacking because they aren‟t being seen” (Juma, Adult FGD).

After it launched, that station was so popular and even after some time still, from

2008 to 2010, that station was up there, and now [name] came in, and people

know him [name] and his short friend, I tell you that station was soaring… Now if those people were as social with people as they were before, this station would

have gone very far, it would have progressed. (Kali, Youth FGD Shilanga)

Gaps in levels of interpersonal communication were further described to occur

after the halting of football tournaments that used to be organized by the station formerly.

Whereas the community felt that there was an underhand in these tournaments stopping,

the management maintained they had served their purpose of promoting peace after the

post-election violence.

The view from both the station staff and community participants, particularly the

youth and community listener group, was that the station was capable of doing more to

encourage interpersonal interactions through awareness strategies such as road shows.

Youth participants stated that the lack of such awareness led to many people not knowing

the station‘s existence. Most staff shared similar sentiments stating the station had lagged

in zeal to interact with the community actively:

The only way we can create awareness is through road shows and forums because

if we had the roadshows and forums, people will come, they will get to see (John),

if you want to see (Noah) you can but now so many people don't know who we are

and it is because we do not get time to interact. (John, Pamoja FM staff).

53



Addressing community issues

At the onset of the discussion, there was the general acknowledgement of the

station by participants for the effort they put in discussing issues that resonated with

concerns and interests of the community and the fact that the station had provided an

alternative voice to the negativity portrayed by mainstream media. As the interviews

probed further gaps emerged in terms of the station‘s role in addressing relevant concerns.

Children participants particularly felt their issues were sufficiently addressed primarily

through the debate show that targeted them.

Q. what are the things that you feel affect the children in Kibera?

Respondent 1: Drugs

Respondent 2: Peer Pressure

Respondent 3: Bad Company

Respondent 4: Addiction

Respondent 5: Rape

Respondent 6: Dropping out of schools

Respondent 7: Lack of schools

Respondent 8: Lack of enough school fees

Respondent 9: Early pregnancies

Q. Now all these things you've mentioned does Pamoja FM bring them on air ALL: Yes

Yes. In the debate show Q. In which other show? (Silence)

Their contentment was reflective of the response from the host of the children‘s

show who revealed that problems addressed on air were raised through a joint effort

between the children, parents, school management and gatekeepers. There was an

expression of openness and interaction in the development of the show between the

children themselves and the presenter and children; ―when say a student has said a point

in the mjadala (debate) then the child at home is not pleased with that point, it will force

that child to come to Pamoja FM and speak out the thing that she knew” (Sheila, Children

FGD).

54



Youth participants felt several problems relevant to them, were not being

addressed by the station. They felt only some of their issues such were represented;

―maybe only „headboy‟, insecurity he talks about, and when you talk about that you must

include unemployment because people go into such things because of unemployment, he

touches on those things” (Patrick, Youth FGD Shilanga).One youth participant however

expressed the view that the station totally failed to air their issues asides entertainment

interests:

I don't see as if they air things in that station, we want. As in that person comes for

the show, puts on music for 2 hours and speaks for 30 minutes and that‟s his show that is his expected time in his show. As in this is a person doing the job because of

his basic needs being catered to, but somehow there are some needs of some

people that are reached. There are those who want a shout out at that time. (Slim,

Youth FGD Lindi).

Other problems that the youth felt needed to be addressed and were not by the

station included harassment by police and crime. There was the resonant view that even if

presenters addressed crime, they lacked tact as some would fail to protect the anonymity

of the witness and paint certain areas in bad light that attached stigma to the youth residing

there. The youth sought to be involved in addressing issues that concerned them; ―we want

a direct show that‟ll include everybody, get the person who wants us, tell us the tips of

what they'd want us to do and we come to the show to tell him how we'll do it” (Marcos,

Youth FGD Lindi).

Responses from the Pamoja FM staff differed; for some they felt the station had

addressed youth needs through music played that appealed to the youth, ―they play music

like Davido, Flava ofcourse I‟m targeting the youth and that is the time I can say

something about issues affecting us as African youth‖ (James, Pamoja FM staff). Another

staff participant expressed his concern over the station‘s underrepresentation of youth

needs:

55



This is a group that is no longer interested in sponsorship to do their KCPE and

KCSE exam, they are interested in getting a job, housing they want to know who

their leaders are, they want to engage their leaders, they are really interested

about their health… issues of sex are very important to them, issues of marriage, this is a group where there is no movement of forming a life… Now who is talking about this? I can tell you with all my heart, 100% Pamoja FM is not doing that.

(Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Another staff participant acknowledged the need in addressing youth issues but felt the

station generally lacked funds to address their concerns ―if the funds were there, we would

listen to these problems and forge a way forward but as of now you need to have means to

approach them which we don't” (John, Pamoja FM Staff).

Youth participants saw the lack of interpersonal communication as a reflection of

the mismatch in youth representation in the station; ―because you've come here, you are

now getting it from the horse‟s mouth, instead of them being called there, if they come

here with those live activities, at least now you can get examples, you see how things are

done” (Simon, Youth FGD Lindi). One station staff emphasised the need for the

presenters to reach the youth in their specific precincts of social interactions ―even if you

have breakfast show, you cannot reach them. These must be reached where they are, they

are very choosy, people of my age, we feel nice when you come where we are chewing

Khat, at the matatu base”(Peter, Pamoja FM staff).This view resonated with the listener

group who felt the lack of ground interaction by presenters caused them to lack solid

knowledge on issues they discussed ―you as the caller are the one telling them and you

add on to them so that they know more, and even if you tell them to come, they don't

come!” (Chui, Adult FGD).

The management maintained they were aware of community‘s issues and they

addressed them as they obtained them from SMS, calls, social media and forums with the

listener group. A date was set aside on Wednesday for community to express their

concerns on what they wanted to be addressed, where they could call in the morning show

56



and express their concerns. Management further indicated that they had made efforts to

ensure they addressed youth issues through programmes targeting the youth. However one

presenter maintained that these shows whilst targeting the youth, mainly spoke to their

entertainment needs ―we have this large population that doesn‟t go to school or for a job

and even if they have a job it is to run petty errands. These people their needs I don't think

they are met apart from being entertained” (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Community radio and generating debate

Staff and management maintained that their shows generated debate with

community participants stating the breakfast show as a model example; ―I can say there

is this show that is at least making a difference Tuamke naPamoja, because of the debates‖

(Juma, Adult FGD). Responses revealed that the role of the station in bringing

transformation to the community was primarily seen during the Post-Election Violence,

when the station first launched. Both community and management spoke about how the

station contributed to peace by initiating football tournaments and peace messages that

were broadcast then. Recounts from the management maintained the station had also

helped articulate and solve land legislation problems between the Nubian tribe and other

inhabitants. In this instance, discussion on land issues were initiated by and held in the

station, experts were brought in to help articulate a court case on the same and the

community also participated in the debate:

These people in studio, with the participation of listeners from outside we came to

a solution and for sure we all moved to the then Minister to her office so we can

address the issues together, and really we had a solution that up to now led us to

live in peace, we are not fighting anymore. (Noah, Pamoja FM Management).

Responses from station staff maintained their programmes generated debate basing

this on the kind of responses they got on the ground after shows and feedback on social

media platforms. This was mainly noted while addressing children issues reported to

57



initiate debate among, parents, teachers and children. Issues such as early child

pregnancies, sexual harassment by teachers on school girls and student riots featured. One

staff participant mentioned discussing issues on student riots that caused such a stir in the

community he was attacked for it. Cases of student sexual harassment also generated most

debate:

We had a situation where by the end of a certain particular academic term four

students were suspended because of pregnancies. I tried looking into only to find

the people responsible for their pregnancies were teachers and since teachers were

close to the head of administration, they let the four girls go. We decided to bring

this thing on air, I even had one of the girls, and to our great shock the people

calling were from parents and victims from other schools who had even more

serious issues than this one. So that did a great thing. You see students and

children coming out saying let's discuss this. (Peter, Pamoja FM staff).

He noted further that one hindrance to the station generating debate in significant issues

was fear, both from the community‘s side and the station presenters:

Even though the writing is we are the voice of the people, those are just writings

until the presenter starts talking about things. The problem is very few are willing ... the community has to protect the station, you are not willing to give your life,

because of talking about a girl who was raped. (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Debates were noted to take place on social media as well, however one staff

participant maintained that the station‘s social media page did not elicit as much debate as

personal presenter pages because of the strict Kiswahili language used ―we see it on our

own FB page, not Pamoja, because we allow people to speak the way they want; and we

see debates coming, at Pamoja FM I don‟t see debates flowing” (Peter, Pamoja FM).

One other area seen to encourage discussion was on topics on sexual reproductive health.

This was addressed through a weekly show each Wednesday, Vijana Tubonge (Let‟s speak

youth) within the reggae show Pass the Mic, speak up your mind. The programme had run

for four months and according to the producer, had led to a positive feedback from the

youth on the ground judged by the acceptance of social workers in the field and the high

response among youth in taking HIV tests as opposed to the resistance before.

58



Two-way Communication

Restrictions in joint communication between the management and the community

were expressed. Management expressed their stance that for the community to participate

with ideas, it needed to take place within certain bounds where one had to write a letter

and wait for the management to sit with the board and confer a response. Another way was

the requirement of the listener group to be registered as a Community Based Organisation

―Pamoja is a CR we have built a CR, ok and we have registered as a CBO so when you

are not a member how can you place a finger on something you are not a party to?”

(Abraham, Pamoja FM Management). The same participant expressed the role of the

community as; “to listen and tell us when there is something they see is not right”

(Abraham, Pamoja FM Management). Listener group however maintained their opinions

were never sought even when invited for meetings:

We have called meetings they haven't come. There is a day we called a meeting,

some big people in the station were there, they called us and we went as a display.

We sat there, and they didn't even realize that there were fans there, we just sat

there, even to call one of us to say something they didn‟t. (Maria, Adult FGD).

Youth participants felt the station did not give them a chance to share ideas.

Among the responses was the sense that the station belonged to a certain group of people

who determined what would be taken in. There was also the fear that if their ideas got

absorbed, they would benefit others and not them; “you can see I have ideas, but problem

is that I cannot be able to go and raise it to them, they'll take those ideas and go support a

certain group of people us we remain left out and hurt” (Musa, Youth FGD Lindi).

Similar sentiments emerged from the community listener group who expressed that the

management overlooked their views; ―maybe you will take this information to them, but

even when you take it you‟ll see, they will look at it and put it aside, maybe one will take it

59



in and look at the others will take and tear it” (Juma, Adult FGD). There was the need

expressed to have an environment of free exchange of ideas:

They must listen to the voice of the fans; they are the ones who make the station be

heard. When they cry out their views, they should listen, and also that board

meeting, I think it needs to be before the fans, and they need to be told openly, to

speak openly is good, if they are unable to do their job they put other people.

(Rebekah, Adult FGD).

Participation

Content generation

Responses from staff, management and community revealed that the necessity of

involving the community in determining content; “they are the most important because

they are the ones now to tell you what they think and now you make your programme

based on what they want” (James, Pamoja FM Staff).

Presenters explained the ways they came up with content which ranged in levels of

community involvement. Some cited the use of community members on the ground as

leads, talking with gate keepers and involving their target audience. One staff participant

emphasized the need to involve his audience and not simply dictate to them what to

discuss:

Topics at times can be a bit difficult to generate, so if you work with the children

you'll always get something to have on air. And that can only be done when you

give them full power and they feel like they are part of the programme instead of

dictating over them what you feel to discuss, no, allow them talk it is up to you now

to pick from their talks what to discuss. (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Other ways of generating content was through going on the ground to find issues from the

people. One presenter mentioned walking through Kibera over the weekends to find out

issues to discuss in the show:

Over the weekend we go round Kibera even to places we have never been we

ensure we know how these other areas are doing throughout the week. So where

we reach we will find 2 or 3 people, some speak of what has been happening in

their area and tell us to touch on that on Monday, but we have to weigh and gauge

and do our own research to test its authenticity through this we get to be conscious

of the real issues affecting our people. (John, Pamoja FM Staff).

60



Generation of news content was done through reporters going to the field, liaising

with community leaders, getting information from the community on emergencies and

social media through the page Kibera ni Kwetu (Kibera is out home). There was a split

view among the staff participants as to the reporters‘ presence. While some station staff

maintained that reporters were on the ground and up to date with current happenings, other

responses contrasted this. One listener group participant narrated his experience “I believe

the presenters are letting us down. From 8:30 this morning, I have been reporting a fire at

Laini saba, I have reported till 11, nobody in the station knows there's a fire in Laini

Saba” (Chui, Adult FGD).

One staff participant noted the reporters had a basic presentation of the news,

hardly involving community affected, which he found limiting to the community‘s ability

to contribute content:

CR station should actually be the voice and even influence decisions that are made

and decisions can only be influenced if it is the voice of the people being heard not

just the reporter saying this road is bad, let it be reported that he has gone to the

person living there, and ask him how long he's been there, how long has the road

been spoiled, how many promises have you been given, have they come to fruition

or not, then come back , let the station be a platform for airing but the content

should be purely from the ground. (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff)

Radio staff also reported generating content based on national data and personal

observation. One of the shows on sexual health that targeted the youth based its content on

reports from the Kenya reproductive health data indicating high incidences of unaddressed

sexual issues such as early pregnancies and school dropout rates. This was then related to

youth in Kibera whose lifestyle mirrored the statistics ―because I was also living in

Gatwikira, teens from age of class 5, 6, 7 were into motherhood…From that experience I

said let's have a youth show that can also give them a voice and have them come on air”

(Andrew, Pamoja FM staff).

Management maintained the community was given a chance to contribute to the

61



topics particularly in the breakfast show where a day was set aside for them to call in and

suggest their topics to be addressed; the listener group acknowledged this opportunity.

Responses also revealed feelings of exclusion from the community particularly in

contributing to content which was echoed by the station staff; “a good number of audience

are working out ways to support by contributing in terms of content and all that but the

majority and all, they feel that the love is not there, that is between the station and them”

(James, Pamoja FM Staff). Community participants felt that even when they tried to have

a say in some of the decisions with regard to content it was not taken into account; ―At this

moment the station has gone really down, those who are inside the studio don‟t care who

is listening out there... when they arrange their programmes they do not involve the

listeners” (Baraka, Adult FGD). They expressed that this made them feel disinterested in

getting involved with some threatening to stop listening, ―Someone like me, I am a

frequent listener, I use my money to call, but now I would rather stop and use that money

to take a bath” (Juma, Adult FGD).

Responses from youth participants expressed the station did not give them a

chance to contribute to the kind of programmes or topics they would have liked and felt

this led the station to misrepresent the youth and address unrelated issues as seen in issues

of insecurity, a topic they found most needful:

They should get the topics from the people, these talks, these people you [station]

invite, what's the basis of their selection?... I want to give them a tip, let them call

the OCS of Kilimani, chief of DC, all those chiefs, then call the chief, the major

and the corporal, then they come there and talk about the insecurity of Kibera.

Then they will give you the points to talk about in the next topics, then in the next

show, invite now the leaders and the youth in Kibera. (Marcos, Youth FGD Lindi)

Other youth participants felt the decision making process in content matters belonged to a

few select who decided on what to announce; “Pamoja FM has its owners, the godfathers

who say this cannot be announced on radio, they decide that can be announced and that

62



cannot be announced” (Mwala, Youth FGD Shilanga).Some youth participants felt the

lack of co-participation in generating programming content was due to the lack of station

staff presence on the ground; “as much as they are trying to represent the views of the

people, they need to go to the people, to get the views from the people so that they can now

air them out there” (Simon Youth FGD Lindi).

The question was asked on what topics the community would like to be aired if

given a chance to contribute, several topics were suggested; youth suggested topics on

investment matters, employment, mentorship, entrepreneurship, talent and innovation, and

educating youth groups. The listener group suggested content targeting women rights and

a programme on youth that would bring them out as able citizens of society and not

merely drug takers and programmes on culture of various tribes to promote cohesiveness.

One listener group participant however noted that most of the suggested topics were once

there but disappeared. A new discussion arose on how the programmes in the station had

deteriorated from what they used to be initially, most programmes were noted to have lost

their interactive element as debates had been removed from most; ―yes the programmes

are there, but in a haphazard way, not how it used to be, so if it can come back and be run

how it was, it will be fine, if not, shut the station down” (Juma, Adult FGD).

Whilst children participants expressed contentment with the coverage of their

issues, they did express the need to have radio lessons as important for those who could

not afford school fees. Asked however as to why they never suggested it to the station, one

child responded; ―they have never asked as such a question” (Natalie, Children FGD).

On the question of programming in terms of scheduling and determining duration

of programme responses from the community listener group revealed that most felt their

contributions regarding such matters hit a dead wall; “we talked about some programmes

that were to be removed, others to be added air time, and some even we were suggesting

63



that the presenters be removed; but it didn't happen, it went away just like that” (Maria,

Adult FGD). Scheduling of programmes and determination of their duration was mainly

done under the supervision of the Head of Programming. Management maintained that

processes had to be followed for the community to be involved in the station‘s

broadcasting as not all community members understood broadcasting; “if you have

something you want to do through Pamoja, you can‟t just come like that, you have to

explain to us and we see whether this suits with our broadcasting policies, that‟s what we

put first” (Abraham, Pamoja FM Management).

One staff participant was of the view that the station lacked a well-grounded

research team to gather relevant needs from the community and include in their

programmes and maintained that it was the right of the community to make certain

decisions regarding programming such as on kinds of programmes, presentation of the

programmes and even news “you cannot just sit in an office alone and say ok I think we

need a youth programme, yes we need a youth programme, how? to discuss what? Then go

back to these people that is how research is done” (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Community participation through production was seen to be through opportunities given

to the community mainly for content generation as described above.

Policy Planning and management

Community participants stated that the community was distanced in full

involvement in formulation of policies and plans. Management responses revealed policies

and plans were formulated solely by the Pamoja Development Centre (PADEC), Pamoja

FM‘s parent body. Management showed a willingness to involve the community in policy

making but only in formulating policies that directly affected them; “they cannot

formulate a policy to give a guideline to a presenter because ofcourse this is a trained

64



person… but policies that are enhancing their welfare, listenership, I think that is what we

can encourage for them” (Noah, Pamoja FM Management).

Other limitations to involving the community in policy making were attributed to

adopting government and in-house policies. On the question of whether they thought

community should be involved in policy planning, some station staff felt the community

should generally be involved in policy planning; “To some extent yes. they are the people

listening, they know what they want and how they want it so if you made a policy five

years ago I don't think it should apply” (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff). Ofcourse they should be

... that is what the law states for CRs” (James, Pamoja FM Staff). Others stated it was up

to the management to make such decisions as they were already representative of the

community:

Not really because most of the people that come from the management team are

from Kibera, so it is for them to do more research when they sit together as a team,

it is them to put out their ideas and say this is what we are getting from the

community, I think that is the best way they can give that approach. (Andrew, Pamoja FM Staff)

Other felt the management should come up with ways of ensuring the community could

freely and openly address their concerns. A Pamoja SACCO was considered ideal for

listeners to form:

Through that SACCO is how you can get to know who is who and how they can

make decisions as a community if there is no SACCO, how will they get into

Pamoja, it will be only through the calls and SMSs but if the SACCO will be there

it will ensure we solve issues together since the issues will be touching us all (John,

Pamoja FM Staff). Existing Gaps between Theory and Practice

The study revealed existing gaps between theoretical participatory approaches and

actual practice of participatory communication tenets by Pamoja FM. The study focused

on the approaches of access, dialogue, participation and self-management.

When it came to access, the study revealed that most participants found the

physical location of the station accessible however the ability and willingness of the

65



community to come closer to the station (UNESCO, 1977) was restricted. UNESCO

debates state that community should have a right to select communication material

however the study found that the availability of these opportunities was not extended to all

community groups; asides the children, youth and community listener group participants

felt their opportunities had been curbed.

With regard to feedback access, direct participation through transmission of

programmes (UNESCO, 1977) was observed primarily through SMS, calls, social media.

The difference came in keeping in touch with managers and interactions between

producers and receives of messages (UNESCO, 1977, p. 4) which differed from practice.

Youth and listener group participants did not have a solid relationship with the

management and thus the opportunities to keep in touch with them were minimal.

Interactions between the community and the managers of the station through meetings

were hardly done and the right to comment or criticise (UNESCO, 1977) was hindered by

processes and failure to adopt ideas.

Freire‘s dialogic communication was examined in this study through station

interactions with community via the participatory strategies employed. An interpersonal

form of communication is central to the practice of dialogic communication (Servaes &

Malikhao, 2002). The study found a gap in practice between the station management and

community. Main sources of interactions between the two remained impersonal through

social media, calls and SMS. The study broke down dialogue in terms of problems

addressed in line with Freire‘s (2005) ‗naming‘ of problems (p. 88). The study found that

while the station put an effort in addressing issues relevant to the community needs such

as missing children announcements, the definition of problems was not in sync between

certain groups in the community especially the youth. Issues such as unemployment,

66



police harassment, crime and drugs were problems that the youth and listener group felt

the station was not spot-on in addressing.

In Freire‘s dialogic theory a catalyst initiates debate in the community. Tufte and

Mefalopulos (2009) suggested a catalyst to be media such as radio. There was a similarity

in theory and practice where the station‘s ability to initiate and propel issues in the

community and drive change was seen to happen. This was significantly seen in the

initiation of peace campaigns and football tournaments that pacified tribal conflicts during

the PEV and conversations on sexual reproductive health that saw more youths go for HIV

tests unlike before.

Freire‘s dialogic format further places emphasis on horizontal communication

where dialogue cannot take place between ―those who deny others the right to speak their

word and those whose right to speak has been denied them‖ (Freire, 2005, p. 88). Thus a

communication channel such as community radio that plays its role as a catalyst must be

in co-participation with the community in a horizontal and reciprocal manner. The reality

on the ground was that horizontal communication was not as represented in theory. While

some individual programmes strove to have a platform for exchange, managerial

requirements curtailed full reciprocal communication through regulations on feedback and

the lack of interactive meetings between the community listener group and them. There

was also a limitation in idea exchange between the community and the station reinforced

by the belief that the station had its own few select owners who decided what ideas went

through.

Participation was seen to operate through involving the public in; production of

programmes, decision making in programming through content and scheduling and policy

planning (UNESCO, 1977, pp. 4-5). The study revealed disparities in participation

between theory and practice. The understanding of production was associated with content

67



generation by some staff but still actual production of programmes was primarily done by

the station. The most evident level of participation practiced was decision making through

content generation. Facets of programming such as duration and scheduling of

programmes was handled solely by the Head of Programming with no community

involved.

In terms of self-management, the study revealed that policies were solely

formulated by the station management and board, with no community contribution.

Decision making was also limited to the station management. Formulation of

communication policies and plans was left to the board and management in the PADEC.

Issues facing community radio

Some of the emerging issues from the data collection process elicited a recurring

set of concerns voiced by participants. Among the challenges pointed out was high staff

turn-over. Community participants described the changes as frequent, with some of the

current presenters unable to handle the programs as effectively as the ones before. In

addition, the station was reliant on interns as part of staff whose temporary stay proved

challenging ―we don't work with reporters for a long time, and if you look at how we

change reporters, presenters, voices ofcourse that one normally becomes a problem

because the listener gets attached to a voice” (Noah, Pamoja FM Management).Turnover

was attributed to the lack of pay that caused presenters to dash for better offers as they

came along.

Lack of professionalism among reporters was seen as another issue. This was

joined to limited internship training that lasted only one week, too short to

comprehensively instil skill. This was seen to reflect on the quality of their work from the

community‘s angle; “Another vital thing, they need to train their journalists, perhaps their

68



skills are lacking, even if it is a three month training, at least they will have skills to be

able to represent the issues well” (Simon, Youth FGD Lindi).

Lack of interactions between staff and management was raised as an issue that

limited feedback and ideas and restricted opportunities to improve skill through trainings

“we have never been called for a staff meeting or training, once in a while the

management of a radio station should call all the presenters together, let them know each

other, I don't even know other presenters” (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Community listener group participants raised the issue of the station‘s operating

hours versus the working hours of Kibera residents. A significant population of Kibera

residents was reported to work outside Kibera, where the frequency was not available; as a

result many of them could not actively participate in the morning show. One staff

participant stated the need for the station to have the popular morning talk show in the

evening when most would be back home, “past 8pm Pamoja is playing music, that‟s the

time people are at home and that‟s the time Citizen comes in to win Kibera population…

that‟s the time to have programmes that will arrest their attention, which we‟re not

doing” (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Financing also came up as a considerable limitation to optimizing the performance

of Pamoja FM as a CR. Most staff reported to work without pay and some admitted partial

commitment to their shows because of attending side jobs to cater to their needs. Financial

limitations were also mentioned to limit interpersonal interaction between the station and

the community since organizing for activities such as road shows and awareness

campaigns were expensive. Asked on whether the community could then fund the station,

management felt it would be a burden to them and it wouldn‘t work:

I don't think in Kenya funding can come from the community but in other countries,

I was reading somewhere you find the community has the aspect of coming

together collecting the money and supporting the station. But in Kenya most

69



listeners rely much on the radio, in fact they would want prizes so that you can

motivate them to continue listening. (Noah, Pamoja FM Management)

The community listener group however expressed the fact that they were willing to

contribute “I even called the station concerning the phone, I told them we can raise money

for that phone, from that time, they would‟ve sat down, thought of calling the fans to sit

down with them, see what way to contribute” (Mali, Adult FGD).

There was the alternative view from some youth and community listener group

participants who felt the station did have enough funds. The youth held suspicion over the

cessation of the football tournament; “No, you cannot say it ended let's just say the people

who were organising it, something happened, you know this is Kenya, nothing runs

straight, maybe in between the hyenas came in” (Kali, Youth FGD Shilanga). The

community listener group participants held the suspicion that the station made profits

though only for a few select:

If you are somewhere and you see you are not making profits don't you leave and

somebody else enters, the management has stuck there, they do not want to move,

meaning there is a profit they get there, if there's profit, why don't you use money

to get money? They should use their money to build it and get gains later, so they

have just sat there, we are suffering here and they are using us. (Juma, Adult

FGD) Pamoja FM: The Voice of Kibera?

Pamoja FM goes by the slogan ‗the Voice of Kibra‘, in an attempt to get a final

view regarding the participatory role of the station, the researcher intuitively posed the

question as to whether participants felt the station lived up to its slogan. Elements that

influenced most responses of those opposed to the reality of the slogan were based on the

lack of joint communication between the station and community. Youth and listener group

participants spoke nostalgically of the former prowess of the station as a voice with the

youth maintaining that the only way the station would get back the community is if they

went back; “They go back to zero, from the first time they began, I see is the only way they

will get the people of the community. If you compare how they were back then and now

70



there's a very big difference” (Tyson, Youth FGD Shilanga). One listener group

participant figuratively explained this:

Pamoja FM was like a good mirror where we would go see ourselves clearly and

we would be happy, seeing yourself as you are; now somebody comes with mud

and applies it on the mirror, when you go look at yourself, the first thing you see is

the mud instead of yourself and you only see yourself in a little space. (Mali, Adult

FGD)

The listener group expressed that the station had changed from being a voice of the

community to being a ‗voice of the management‘ “it is supposed to be our voice, and then

when we give our views…only their way goes through, it's their things brought to the

studio, their way that goes in the studio” (Maria, Adult FGD). There was the view that the

station should come out of its aloneness and identify people who would become their

ground links. For the youth, the notion that the station focused on the upper villages of

Olympik, Makina, Kibra and feelings of neglect led them to render the slogan erroneous;

“No. It is not the voice of Kibera it is the voice of Makina” (Musa, Youth FGD Lindi).

Every time they talk about something, they talk about Kibra, only the area of

number 8 and Olympik that's the end, but they don't say Shilanga or Undugu they

see as if here we are not people, it is only up there they are people (Rocky, Youth

FGD Shilanga).

It's as if somebody has boarded a bus, and stopped at the stage but is not there

yet... It‟s somewhere around the corner (Slim, Youth FGD Lindi)

Huko Kibra (Salome, Youth FGD Shilanga)

Others felt the station was the voice of the community due to its location “Yeah,

because it's based in the community” (Bern, Youth FGD Lindi), while some felt the

station lived up to its motto ―I tend to differ since its inception they've really tried to reach

out to the community, to represent everything in the community, and they‟re able to

address a lot of issues and organise a lot of events positive to humanity” (Simon, Youth

FGD Lindi).

71



The management felt the station lived up to its slogan and were of the belief that

since nobody from the community had complained, and they were still on air, then

community considered them their voice. Some staff fully considered it the voice;“Yes,

100% because it is” (James, Pamoja FM Saff); others maintained the station was a voice

but admitted it wasn‘t as powerful a voice “It‟s only the loose ends we talked about that

need to be tightened, if they push for that, it‟ll be the real voice of Kibera, though this is a

voice that doesn't have that punch line, it‟s still the voice” (John, Pamoja FM Staff);

others felt it wasn‘t:

No, No, No Pamoja FM is not the voice… maybe they are growing towards but right now No. If you want to know people are not really with it, go to the barber

shops and the base where people relax see what they are listening to, matatus, the

moment they turn from Ngong road to Kibera, you hear Classic, radio Jambo,

these people are listening to other things. Remember it‟s the voice, what does the voice of the people mean? It‟s the people who are supposed to be talking right? so if you want to speak for these people, no that is not the voice of the people

(Laughs). (Peter, Pamoja FM Staff).

Summary of Key Findings

Findings revealed participants did not have a distinct understanding of what

participation was with broad terms used to define it at first. Participation was described to

involve community and community radio with the onus placed on the station to initiate it.

Management described participation as allowing community to be a part of planning the

station‘s daily operations, programming and contributing to discussions during shows.

Community viewed participation to involve requesting songs, contributing to show

discussions, addressing errors, providing solutions and engaging in social awareness

activities of the station. Participation was also defined in terms of a shared ideological

accord between the station and community. Participation was found to be restricted due to

the passivity of community members, high staff turnover, technical hitches, language used

and the station‘s limited efforts to interact with community. Management was held liable

for limited community participation because of their reluctance to involve community.

72



In terms of access, the station was generally found to be physically accessible to

most asides the youth. Youth and community listener group participants felt they were not

offered an opportunity to get involved in the selection of communication material children

however appeared content with the opportunity awarded them to select topics. Feedback

processes included call lines, text messages, social media platforms, office visits and

roadside chats with station staff and management. Feedback in terms of the right to

comment or criticize had waned over time with community feeling their comments were

ignored. Feedback in terms of keeping in touch with the managers of the community radio

station was found to be coarse.

Interpersonal communication between the community and the station staff was

found to be wanting. Feelings of exclusion of some regions in broadcasting and lack of

awareness campaigns were seen to limit interactions. While there was the general

acknowledgement that the station put effort in addressing issues, problem definition was

not in sync particularly with the youth. Findings revealed the station played its role in

generating debate particularly through peace messages during the PEV and solving land

issues. Findings revealed reciprocal communication between the community and the

station was strained and that a free flow of ideas was not supported by the station

management.

The primary expression of participation was through content development with

facets of programming such as duration and scheduling of programmes handled solely by

the Head of Programming. Presenters generated content through visiting the community,

volunteer representatives in the community, data reports and reporters. Community

responses revealed feelings of exclusion from the community in contributing content.

While policies and plans were formulated solely by the Pamoja Development Centre

73



(PADEC), Pamoja FM‘s parent body, management showed a willingness to involve the

community in policy making but only in policies that directly affected them.

Gaps between participatory communication theory tenets and actual practice were

identified. The station was considered accessible yet not all felt welcome to access it;

feedback mechanisms were in place but interactions with management and opportunities to

keep in touch with them were hardly present. Interpersonal communication between

station and community were lacking, community definition of problems was found to not

be always in sync. The station was recognized as generating debate in several key

occasions however horizontal and reciprocal communication between the community and

the management was absent. Efforts to involve the community were seen through content

generation but not extended to scheduling and duration in programming, production and

policy planning.

Summary

This chapter has provided qualitative findings from the research conducted. Data

analysed was obtained from Focus Group Discussions and in depth interviews conducted.

The findings were examined along the study objectives. The following chapter discusses

the key findings in light of the study objectives, makes conclusions, provides

recommendations and presents areas for further research.

74



CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter discussed the findings for this research according to the set objectives,

drew conclusions and made recommendations. The purpose of this study was to examine

the Pamoja FM as a participatory communication medium in Kibera. The study sought to

look at this through working with three main objectives. The first objective was to find out

the understanding of the term ‗participation‘ from the perspective of Pamoja FM

staff/management and Kibera community. The second objective was to describe the

participatory communication strategies Pamoja FM uses to involve the Kibera community

including how members of Kibera community participated in the running of Pamoja FM

through dialogue, access, management, content development and programming. The third

objective was to identify the existing gaps between participatory theory approaches and

actual practice of participatory communication tenets particularly with regard to dialogue,

participation, access, management of Pamoja FM.

Discussion of Key Findings

Understanding of the term participation

The findings of this study largely supported various views portrayed in

development literature that describe the ambiguity of the term participation (Gumucio-

Dagron, 2001). Participants initially defined it broadly as ‗involvement‘, ‗engagement‘

and ‗co-operation‘ or as ‗you give I give‘ and whilst the terms were similar in meaning, it

portrayed a sketchy understanding. Key elements nonetheless featured in its definition that

corresponds to those of Vandervelde (1979) and Hayword et al. (2004) as the ‗who‘,

‗what‘, ‗where‘, ‗how‘ and ‗why‘ aspects of involvement.

Findings showed that participation as the ‗who‘ was defined as involving the

75



community, community radio station and also Community Based Organisations (CBOs).

Findings revealed participation as the ‗where, ‗what and ‗how‘ was understood to take

place within and without the studio with activities such as contributing to discussions in

shows, song requests, involvement in station campaigns, providing solutions to errors,

programming and planning operations.

While elements of feedback access and programming were present (UNESCO,

1977) in the aforementioned activities, findings showed an understanding that represented

a skeleton view of what participation is seen to entail in development literature. Most

activities described presented passive forms of participation (Mavhungu, 2009) that could

otherwise be expressed by a commercial station. Participation in development

communication literature is seen to entail elements of content generation, access,

management, policy planning (UNESCO, 1977). Most of which were amiss in the

definitions and even if present, participant experiences countered it. For instance, while

management understood participation to include programming, planning and contributions

in shows, responses from community participants revealed they were not involved in

programming and planning.

Findings further showed restriction in participation as expressed by the community

who felt neglected by and excluded from the radio‘s activities. Findings revealed a sense

of disengagement in participation from the community due to restricted opportunities

awarded to them to participate in terms of offering solutions to problems and organizing

meetings with management to discuss station matters. The lack of interactions between the

station and community and lack of meetings between management and community was

contrary to Freire‘s dialogic pedagogy which places emphasis on a bottom-up and

reciprocal approach to communication where there is a free setting to share.

Some of the listener group participants had explained how they weren‘t given a

76



chance to contribute in meetings with the management. Dialogue also emphasizes the

naming of the world (Freire, 2005, p. 88) equated to problem definition in development

(Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009), as where people co-participate in definition and exchange of

meanings. The findings proved this scarcely happened between the community and the

station as the community felt their ideas ―hit a dead wall‖ when presented to the

management especially when it came to addressing issues about the studio. The staff

themselves felt the management was reluctant and lax in their endeavours to reach out to

the community which further showed a limitation in the horizontal communication.

Feelings of neglect and exclusion expressed by youth as a limit to their

participation particularly in addressing social issues like crime went against the

understanding of participation as power and control (Penzhorn & Misibi as cited in White,

1994) where power is redistributed to the community (Servaes, 2002) and where the

deprived majority is strengthened (White, 1994). The youth explained they were hardly

involved in determining issues that affected them especially when addressing issues such

as crime that affected them directly. This went contrary to the idea of participation as

power where the deprived majority is strengthened (White, 1994) by being active in self

and communal improvement (Servaes, 2002) to address needs and solutions. With the

youth not being involved to address their needs and solutions, participation became

curtailed.

Findings revealed a new angle to defining participation where it was viewed as a

shared ideological accord between the station and the community in terms of

understanding each other‘s goals and needs. Most development literature base the

definition of participation on tangible actions, however this finding brought a new

understanding to participation in terms of an intangible perspective proving true to

77



Gumucio-Dagron‘s (2001) statement on the ―variety and looseness‖ (p. 8) of the term that

proves valuable in contributing to the concept‘s constant shaping.

Participatory Strategies

The study‘s second objective was to describe the participatory communication

strategies Pamoja FM used to involve the Kibera community including how members of

Kibera community participated in the running of Pamoja FM. The examination of these

strategies was based on tenets from Freire‘s dialogic edagogy and UNESCO model of

access, participation and self-management. This section discussed these elements as

revealed from the findings.

Access

Findings revealed both choice and feedback access as present but restricted. The

constraint was mainly due to the failure by the station to comprehensively ensure

participation of the community in the access to select communication content, acting on

feedback received from the community, and interactions between the community and

station management. UNESCO (1977) generally stated access to infer to the ability of

public to come closer to communication systems. Findings revealed most participants

found the station accessible to them asides the youth who found it unapproachable

primarily due to feeling unwanted and perceptions that they would be looked down upon

by the staff. Whilst the station could not control how people may imagine them to be,

perceptions are not always baseless and as findings revealed, these perceptions were based

on the lack of interaction between the station and the youth which they viewed as a sign

that they weren‘t welcome.

Findings further revealed that Pamoja FM restricted choice access particularly in

terms of the community having ―a right to select communication material‖ UNESCO

(1977). The station provided limited opportunities for community to have a say in the

78



selection of communication material, only children participants felt involved, youth and

listener group participants felt their opportunities had been curbed by the station

management such that even if they were awarded an avenue to voice their thoughts, the

management ignored. According to the UNESCO (1977) debates, choice access is also

viewed in terms of transmission of materials as requested by the public. Findings revealed

that Pamoja FM did offer opportunity for the community to request material mainly

through song requests and announcements such as missing children and death

announcements. However among the community listener group participants, there was the

view that the station presenters had grown callous in involving the community to address

their requests and shout outs and this distanced them from getting involved in the shows.

The study found that Pamoja FM employed feedback mechanisms that facilitated

direct participation between the community and the station during transmission

(UNESCO, 1977) such as SMS, calls and social media networks. However while feedback

mechanisms were in place, Pamoja FM limited feedback when it came to the right to

comment and criticise. Findings revealed that the mutual engagement between Pamoja FM

and the community in terms of contributing opinions, and the right to comment or criticize

had waned over time such that while criticisms and comments were seen to be allowed, no

action was taken from the management side. This limited participation and fit rightly into

Pretty (1995) manipulative and consultative participation types where in the former,

participation was simply pretence and in the latter, community radio as the external agent,

was under no obligation to adopt the community‘s views.

According to UNESCO (1977) feedback is also viewed in terms of keeping in

touch with managers or administrators of communication organizations. Study findings

revealed Pamoja FM did not facilitate an environment for such interactions. Whilst the

management maintained such interactions existed, it was contrary to the youth and

79



community listener group participants who stated they did not have a solid relationship

with the management due to lack of interaction and feelings of disrespect due to snubbed

meetings.

Dialogue

Study findings revealed the experience of dialogue was limited between Pamoja

FM and Kibera community. Dialogue had not been enabled to happen through entering

into communication where ideas were exchanged freely and where listening and learning

could take place in equality Freire (2005). When it came to interpersonal communication,

findings revealed Pamoja FM maintained basic forms of impersonal interactions between

the community and the station through calls, texts, and social media and whilst

participants appreciated these forms, there was the need expressed for a more personalised

communication between the two.

Findings from the youth and community listener group revealed that the station

interaction with the community on the ground had declined with feelings of exclusion

expressed though some staff members were noted for interacting with community. This

experience proved contrary to Freire‘s dialogic pedagogy which places emphasis on the

individual and interpersonal communication. While Freire‘s theory has been criticised for

focusing solely on interpersonal forms of communication as the only channel through

which dialogic communication can take place, media has been considered an avenue of

dialogic communication (Servaes & Malikhao, 2002) through feeding interpersonal

channels of communication (Schramm, 1964) thus interpersonal communication is still a

requirement in enhancing dialogue in community radio.

In terms of problem definition as a component in dialogue, the study looked at the

synchrony in addressing issues where findings revealed the station particularly appeared to

miss out on youth priorities as the youth defined them to be. This was attributed to a great

80



extent due to the lack of station presence on the ground and the lack of communication

between the station and the community. Freire (2005) described dialogue as the

―encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world,‖ with

naming defined as ―problem definition,‖ in development (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009).

Findings revealed that this encounter between men, in this case the youth and the Pamoja

FM, to define their own problems, to exchange meanings of the world they found

themselves in, had been curtailed.

Most youth participants stated that the station did not address their pressing

problems such as insecurity, crime and police harassment, and called for the station to

engage them since they experienced the issues first hand. Pamoja FM further came out as

the dominant party in deciding what problems to address particularly concerning the youth

which limited dialogue and brought to light Freire‘s assumption that naming could not

occur between ―those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose

right to speak has been denied them‖ (Freire, 2005, p. 88). Study findings also revealed the

station catered to the youth mainly from an entertainment standpoint.

Study findings revealed that Pamoja FM played a catalytic role though exemplified

more vigorously during its initial broadcasts than currently. Freire introduced the concept

of a catalyst in dialogue as one who articulated communication so as to facilitate dialogue.

Melkote and Steeves (2001) did limit this role to a person but also communication

channels that were used to ―generate dialogue to help people understand each other and

identify their collective problems‖ (p. 339). Findings revealed that Pamoja FM played their

catalytic role in generating debate particularly during the PEV where the station initiated

peace messages which contributed greatly to the cessation of tribal conflict at that time.

Another instance was in solving land issues between the Nubi and other tribes.

Findings revealed Pamoja FM‘s enthusiasm to raise and perpetuate debate had

81



dwindled over time with most references from responses referring to past events. The

study findings also revealed that the most interactive shows, where there was co-

participation in generation of content and a collective identification of problems (Melkote

& Steeves, 2001) generated most debate such as was the case with the children and

morning debate shows. Lack of interaction from the station to the community was found

to be a deterrent to Pamoja‘s ability to initiate and generate dialogue.

Findings also revealed that dialogue was restricted between the community and

Pamoja FM because of constrained reciprocal communication. Freire placed emphasis on

a bottom-up communication approach as the ideal development with the argument that

individuals held capacity to develop themselves, but through relationships that were on an

equal plane. Pamoja FM has not realized the potential of a bottom-up approach to

communication. While a semblance of openness is presented by the management‘s words

and overtures, an actual practice of it where Pamoja FM has offered opportunity to the

community to exercise their ability to generate ideas, reflect on them, plan or make

decisions is absent.

Findings showed that two-way communication between Pamoja FM and the

community is wanting and this was seen from the responses of meetings being cancelled

between the group and the station as well as ideas not being sought or adopted.

Management and part of the staff approached the community more from a recipient

perspective than an active participant capable of participating in a symbiotic process that

would create and stimulate understanding. Barriers that curtailed free flow of information

between Pamoja FM and the Kibera community were revealed with the youth feeling the

station belonged to a select few and thus felt distant. This contradicted Freire‘s dialogic

approach where there is co-participation in defining and exchanging meanings.

82



Participation

Findings revealed participation in Pamoja FM was primarily extended to the

community through content generation. UNESCO (1977) defined participation to operate

in three levels; production where public was given an opportunity to produce programmes;

decision making were public was involved in content generation, duration and scheduling

of programmes; and planning where the public contributed to the formulation of plans and

policies for communication.

From the findings it emerged that Pamoja FM did not extend participation to the

community in facets such as producing programmes, formulating policies or even duration

and scheduling of programmes. While Pamoja FM practiced participation by extending a

hand to the community to determine topics of discussion, findings revealed that this

participation operated to a considerable extent as manipulative (Pretty, 1995) where

participation was pretence. Findings particularly from the community listener group

revealed that even though Pamoja FM gave opportunities to suggest topics, and

discussions did take place, the adoption of them was hardly seen and nothing seemed to

happen, members of the listener group frequently used a phrase to describe this

“wanatupaka mafuta kwa mgongo wa chupa” translated, ‗they oil us with the back of a

bottle‘ a Kiswahili saying to mean the management seemed to take them for a ride.

Community participants felt that even when they tried to have a say in some of the

decisions with regard to content, extending the duration of some shows, removing other

shows altogether or in general presentation, the management was not open enough to take

into account which made them feel powerless and disinterested. These feelings of

powerlessness and limitation went against elements of participation of power and control

(Servaes, 2002; White, 1994) that addressed the need for the people to have a say in

decision making.

83



Whilst participation under the UNESCO debates entails involvement of the

community in policy planning, study findings revealed that Pamoja FM policies are solely

formulated by the Pamoja Development Centre (PADEC), Pamoja FM‘s parent body.

Responses from the management showed a willingness to involve the community in policy

making but only in areas that would directly affect the community as listeners.

Existing gaps between theory and practice

The final objective of the study was to identify existing gaps between participatory

theory approaches and actual practice of participatory communication tenets as exhibited

in Pamoja FM. The gaps were to be identified based on tenets found within the two major

approaches of participatory communication theory; dialogic pedagogy and UNESCO

debates (Servaes & Malikhao, 2002). The tenets would thus include dialogue,

participation, access, and self-management. The findings of this study revealed differences

between theory and practise.

While participatory communication tenets were described verbally particularly by

the management as they were in theory; and the station even having its policy based on the

participatory tenets of access and participation, practice was wanting. While elements of

participatory communication theory tenets appeared somewhat in practice, overall

adoption was not present. For example, the station was generally considered accessible yet

selection of communication material was not entirely extended to the community.

Feedback mechanisms were in place, yet feedback through interactions with management

and opportunities to keep in touch with them were hardly present with the right to

comment and criticise curtailed.

While elements of dialogue were found to be present such as generation of debate

and Pamoja‘s catalytic role exhibited, this was just about it, other components of dialogue

such as horizontal communication, problem definition were largely amiss. Interpersonal

84



communication between station and community was found to be lacking yet this

―encounter between men‖ (Freire, 2005, p. 88) is at the heart of Freire‘s dialogic

pedagogy.

In terms of ―naming‖ –problem definition in development (Tufte & Mefalopulos,

2009) findings revealed that while community found issues addressed relevant to them

there was still the counter expression that the definition of problems by Pamoja FM was

not in sync with youth and community listener group participants. In participation, Pamoja

FM was found to extend its efforts to involve the community only through content

generation yet community was not involved in production of programmes and planning of

communication policies as theory stated, and even in generating content; only the children

were content with the efforts extended to them to generate content for their shows.

Conclusion

This study sought to examine Pamoja FM as a participatory communication

medium in Kibera. It looked into the participatory communication relationship between the

station and the community through the participatory strategies utilised. The study sought to

first of all find out the understanding of the term participation from the perspective of

Kibera community and Pamoja FM. The study established the term is as ambiguous as

development literature puts it however participation was seen to be a very tangible

experience; it can be felt, heard, touched and experienced in every sense and so could its

absence.

The study saw the activities of participation as moderately defined in the

understanding of the community and station. Participation is understood to entail what

Fairbairn (2009) termed as less meaningful participation like call ins, song requests. While

the management seemed to understand elements of participation more, the practise was

absent. Meaningful participation such as ―involvement in the station‘s governance

85



structures, consultation on programme topics and formats, training, production and

distribution of programmes, audience research and finance‖ missed in both the station‘s

and community‘s understanding of participation which reflected in their absence in

practise. The absence of participation was felt from community and primarily anchored on

the lack of personal interactions and interpersonal communication between the station and

the community. It seemed the station had prescribed a way of operating the relationship

with the community that left the community almost comfortable with its recipient role.

The second conclusion in this study was on the participatory communication

strategies employed by Pamoja FM to the community. The study established that

participatory communication strategies were used in part such that hardly was one strategy

employed to its absolute measure or to a better extent. Pamoja FM adopted PC strategies in

the most moderate of processes. For instance access was employed primarily through basic

feedback processes during transmission of shows such as texts, calls but barely through

joint interactions with management and keeping in touch with procedures of the station;

participation was employed only through extending a hand to community to contribute to

topics and not in production or scheduling or planning; self-management was non-existent.

Whilst researchers have argued on the difficulties of applying media development

theories to actual ground projects Fairchild (2010), most posit that the commitment of any

community radio station is seen in its participation (Girard, 2001). According to Fairbairn

(2009) participation is the key defining feature of community radio, while community

radio in itself is defined as participatory and dialogic (Fraser & Estrada, 2002; Tufte &

Mefalopulos, 2009). Even though not all theory can be applied to all contexts, nonetheless

86



for a community radio to be so, the aforementioned elements that actually define it are

needed.

Looking at all tenets the study sought to address, the researcher found Pamoja FM

falling short with the missing link primarily being in dialogue and particularly horizontal,

interpersonal and two-way communication between the station and the community. This

was the major outcry from the community that the management seemed to be oblivious to.

There was the stark contrast of opinions between Pamoja FM and the community; whilst

the community considered they were distant from the station and were eager to be more

involved and have their voice heard, management felt the processes they had were

optimum and sufficient. Pamoja FM has stated in its policy that the two main tenets they

abide by is access and participation yet these are not fully exploited. Whilst the theory was

quoted in policy, reality released a different narration.

The third conclusion came from the observation of the gaps between theory and

practise. Gaps were observed in all tenets represented in the study but to a greater extent

when it came to dialogue, access and participation, which are the core of community radio

(Girard, 2001; Fairbairn, 2009). Without these elements, community radio loses its

character as a participatory and dialogic medium of communication. From the findings,

the study revealed limited participation in decision making, in exchange of ideas and

information, and in interactions between management and community. This distance

curtailed the very essence of Pamoja FM as a community radio station.

Several arguments have however risen regarding the practicality of some of the

tenets of participatory communication, for instance Berger (1996) argued that community

participation through the owned and controlled by the community criterion was unrealistic

and short-lived. This could probably explain the lack of community involvement in more

advanced forms of participation such as self-management. The Community Radio manual

87



(1999) however suggested that there could be no fixed formula to community participation

as each community is different and should determine its own terms for participation. From

community responses, Kibera community did seek to be more involved by Pamoja FM

and an avenue to agree on such participatory terms could be needed.

Recommendations

This research sought to get recommendations from the study on how Pamoja FM

could improve in its participatory role toward the community. Results from this study

revealed that there was minimal community participation in general between Pamoja FM

and Kibera community. While there was communication between the two, it was mainly

through impersonal means such as calls, texts with limited interpersonal interactions.

Additionally, participation in terms of dialogue or access through interactions between the

station management, staff and the community, or through policy planning, programming

was barely present. All these gaps have limited Pamoja FM‘s role as a participatory

medium and its commitment to community in participation. Findings further showed an

increasingly severed relationship between the management at Pamoja FM and the

community listener group and youth.

It is therefore recommended that Pamoja FM should provide forums to bolster the

relationship between the community listener group, the community and the station. The

study has recommended more forums, perhaps even monthly, between the listener group

and Pamoja management and an actual attendance of those meetings by management. The

meetings should moreover be in an atmosphere of freedom in exchanging ideas between

the two. One of the issues raised by the listener group was the fact that the management

snubbed meetings and did not give the members a chance to talk in them when invited,

Pamoja FM should let go of the construct of the community as a recipient and forge ways

in which they can generate information between the two.

88



The station should also strive to support the listener group when they seek to invite

other community members to meetings by announcing on radio. One of the issues raised

was that the station never announced meetings on their behalf that would otherwise have

created greater awareness. The community listener group in turn should also strive to meet

among themselves as often as possible, even twice a month, one meeting among

themselves and another with the management.

Language was seen to be a factor in limiting participation from the community;

one staff mentioned that the strict use of pure Kiswahili language on air and in social

media limited community participation particularly among the youth however the listener

group felt the colloquial language used by some presenters was a deterrent to the elderly.

This study recommends that Pamoja FM should find a balance in its language settings and

customise its language depending on the communication channel used and the audience

targeted. For instance, youth participate more often on social media, thus to increase

participation there, which was seen to be low, the station should ease up on pure Kiswahili

format that limits the very audiences they seek to target, the youth. For more serious

formats of programmes where the elder audiences fit, pure Kiswahili could be used. In

terms of on air presentation, language should similarly be customised to suit the targeted

groups, if youth then leeway should be awarded in terms of informality of language use.

Pamoja FM should also strive to include the community in selection and provision

of programming and even production. For instance in terms of programming, both

community and staff participants were of the view that the key show, the morning show,

broadcast at a time when most went to work and thus missed it and this limited

participation. This kind of information could be obtained if Pamoja FM involves the

community group in programming. Pamoja FM should thus consider broadcasting during

times when majority of the listeners are around. The programs can be adjusted to have the

89



community participate perhaps a repeat show to be aired at night.

In terms of gender representation through shows, findings indicated, there was a

host of programs that catered to the general population, youth and children, but there were

none that addressed the needs of women. The station should consider identifying the needs

of women in Kibera and addressing these through a program targeted to them. Although it

is not possible to involve the entire Kibera population to come together and produce

programmes, the management at Pamoja FM needs to actively liaise with the community

listener group as much as possible as they are the link between the station and the ground

and send out its staff to actively engage the community in making shows.

From observation and even participant recounts, all shows asides one, were based

in the station studio. The study revealed staff participants who wished their shows would

be more inclusive of the community by presenting on location. Pamoja FM should think

along the lines of getting out of the studio and into the ground, particularly while

presenting youth shows. In pursuit of the station having its presence felt on the ground,

Pamoja FM should also embark on awareness campaigns in Kibera such as road shows

that could lead to a closer interaction with the community.

Pamoja FM could further look into the idea of building relationships between the

station and the youth population which is a dominant group in the area and thus a key

audience. Major issues raised by the youth participants was the feeling of neglect by the

station, the lack of their problems being addressed sufficiently and the fear of approaching

the station due to its perceived exclusive ownership. Pamoja FM should therefore look

into having youth representatives on the ground in every village in Kibera so as to increase

interaction between the station and the youth. This was an idea recommended by youth

participants in a group discussion and it was suggested as a solution to address the

disengagement between the two. This interaction could address several participatory

90



deficits particularly in dialogue such as problem definition, idea exchange and horizontal

communication between the station and the youth. These representatives can then liaise

with station presenters and reporters.

Pamoja FM can also look into extending opportunities to the community to

participate through contributing to policy planning and extend more decision making

ability to them, it may not be possible to hold meetings with the whole of Kibera, but this

can be done through liaising with the community listener group who can be the ears on the

ground. It all begins with building relationships with the community which is not so

visible now.

Areas for Further Research

The researcher recommended the following issues to be considered for further

research on the topic of participatory communication in community radio. There is need to

find out how other community radios in urban informal settlements operate in their

participatory role within those communities. Little is known about the participatory

function of other community radio stations in urban informal settlements in Kenya such as

KOCH FM in Korogocho, Mtaani FM in Kawangware. This could work as a comparative

study among community radios within urban informal settlements in Kenya and see if the

same limitations affect them all.

During the interviews and focus group discussions, the researcher established that

funding was considered a reason as to why Pamoja FM could not engage in significant

participatory activities. A study on how funding affects the participatory role of a

community radio in urban informal settlements can be useful in relating the function of a

community radio as a participatory medium to the influence of funding in this role.

Findings from the study revealed that participation meant many things to many

people in different contexts. For a community radio, participation is at its heart (Fraser &

91



Estrada, 2002; Girard, 2001) hence a study to explore the understanding of participation

and the effects of that understanding to the practice of a community radio can help to show

how meaning affects practice; as it will be extended to other informal settlements, it will

also show its understanding from different contexts.

Findings further revealed that language had an effect on participation; that the use

of pure Kiswahili for instance on social media, limited youth participation. A study to

explore the effect of language use on participation and on various audience demographics

can be carried out to show the influence language has on the extent of participation among

different community members in community radio broadcasting.

It was also noted in the study that women participants were a small number, which

could be attributed to the lack of programmes that target them and hence their minimal

participation. A study to look into gender and community participation in broadcasting can

be carried out to find out the extent of participation among women in community radio

broadcasting and the factors that influence their participation or lack of it.

92



REFERENCES

Abugah, K. (2009). Millennium fundamentals of research methods introductions. Nairobi:

Destiny Logistics.

Agunga, R. A. (1997). Developing the Third world. A communication approach.

Commack, NY: Nova Science.

Alumuku, P. (2006). Community radio for development. The world and Africa. Nairobi:

Paulines Pub.

Ayee, E. S. (1993). A participatory communication approach to rural community development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Bailey, O., Cammaerts, B., & Carpentier, N. (2007). Understanding alternative media.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Banda, F. (2003). Community radio broadcasting in Zambia: A policy perspective. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/

Banda, F. (2010). Citizen journalism and democracy in Africa. Grahamstown, South

Africa. Retrieved from

https://www.Thesis/Participation.comm.dev.community/journals/Participatory_Lea

rning/

Barranquero, A. (2011). Rediscovering the Latin American roots of participatory

Communication for Social Change. Westminster Papers in Communication and

Culture, 8(1), 154-171. Retrieved from

https://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/

Berrigan, J. F. (1979). Community communications: The role of community media in development. France: UNESCO Press. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/

Berger, G. (2010). Problematizing ‗media development‘ as a bandwagon gets rolling.

International Communication Gazette, 72(7), 547–565.

doi: 10.1177/1748048510378143

Berger, G. (1996).What is the community media? Paper presented at the community voices conference, Malawi. Retrieved from http://www.journ.ru.ac.za/research

Bessette, G. (Ed.). (2006). People, land and water: Participatory development communication for natural resource management. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/

93



Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bosch, T. (2003). Radio, community and identity in South Africa: A rhizomatic study of

Bush Radio in Cape Town. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University,

Ohio. Retrieved from

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/ohiou1079300111/inline

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Cammaerts, B. (2009). Community radio in the West: A legacy of struggle for survival in a state and capitalist controlled media environment. International Communication

Gazette, 71(8), 635-654. doi: 10.1177/1748048509345057

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from

http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2006.pdf

Conrad, B. D. (2011). Lost in the shadows of the radio tower: A Return to the roots of

community radio ownership in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania (Unpublished

master‘s thesis). Ohio University, Ohio. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Conrad, D. (2014). Deconstructing the community radio model: Applying practice to theory in East Africa. Journalism, 15(6), 773-786. doi 10.1177/1464884913504257

Cornish, L., & Dunn, A. (2009).Creating knowledge for action: the case for participatory communication in research. Development in Practice, 19(4-5), 665-677. doi:10.1080/09614520902866330

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Curran, J., & Park, M. (Ed.). (2000). Dewesternizing media studies. London:

Routledge.

Daniel, J. (2012). Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices.

USA: Sage Publications Inc.

Diaz-Bordenave, J. E. (1977). Communication and rural development. Paris: UNESCO.

Dusman, D. L. (2013). The role of community radio in community development: The

case of Radio Miraya in Gumbo, South Sudan. (Unpublished master‘s thesis). Daystar University, Nairobi.

Ekdale, B. (2010, September 5). What‟s in a name (and a number?) [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.brianekdale.com/whats-in-a-name-and-a-number/

94



Ekdale, B. (2014). Slum discourse, media representations and maisha mtaani in Kibera,

Kenya. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 35(1), 92-108. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2014.886277

Erulka, A., & Matheka, S. (2007). Adolescence in the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya.

Retrieved from http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/AdolKiberaSlums.pdf.

Fairbairn, J. (2009). Community media sustainability guide. Retrieved from http://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Community-Media-Sustainability-Guide-The-Business-of-Changing-Lives.pdf

Frampton & Working Group (2007). Community radio: It‟s impact and challenges to its development, working group report. Washington, D.C: Center for International Media Assistance National Endowment for Democracy (CIMA).

Fraser, C., & Estrada, S. R. (2001). Community radio handbook. Paris: UNESCO.

Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/publications/community_radio_handbook.pdf

Fraser, C., & Estrada, S. R. (2002). Community radio for change and development.

Society for International Development, 45(4), 69-73.

doi: 10.1057/palgrave.development.1110408

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th

ed.). NewYork: Continuum.

Girard, B. (2007). Empowering Radio: Good practices in development and operation of community radio issues important to its effectiveness. Retrieved from

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/

Girard, B. (Ed.). (2001). A passion for radio: Radio waves and community. Montreal,

Canada: Black Rose Books.

Githethwa, N. (2008). The way forward for community radios in Kenya. Retrieved from http://www.amarc.org/documents/rapports/Community_Radios_in_Kenya.pdf

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Government of Kenya. (2008). The Kenya communications (Amendment) Bill. Retrieved from http://www.kenyalaw.org/

Government of Kenya. (2012). The Kenya communications (Amendment) Bill. Retrieved from http://www.kenyalaw.org/

Government of South Africa (1994). Independent Broadcasting Authority ACT 153. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/za/

Gray-Felder, D. (2001). Foreword. In A. Gumucio Dagron (Ed.), Making waves: Stories of participatory communication for social change (pp.4-5). New York: The

Rockefeller Foundation.

95



Guest, G., Namey, E., & Mitchell, L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual

for applied research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2008). Vertical minds versus horizontal cultures. An overview of participatory process and experiences. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Communication for development and social change (pp. 68-81). New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2001). Making waves: Stories of participatory communication for social change. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/pdf/making_waves.pdf

Hayward, C., Simpson, l., & Wood, L. (2004). Still left out in the cold: Problematising participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), 95-105. doi/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00264.x/pdf

Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: Sage Publications Inc.

Hopke, J. (2009). Transnational participatory radio: A case study of the Latin

American association of radio education (ALER). (Unpublished master‘s thesis). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/

Jallov, B. (2012). Radio empowerment: Voices of building a community. Gudhjem,

Denmark: Empowerhouse.

Karanja M. (2010, September 3). Myth shattered: Kibera numbers fail to add up. Daily Nation. Retrieved from http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Kibera/

KCOMNET. (2014). Policy guidelines for community radio in Kenya. Retrieved from http://www.kcomnet.org/policy

KCOMNET. (2015). Kenya community media network. Retrieved from http://www.kcomnet.org/community-radios/

Keefer, P., & Khemani, S. (2011) Mass media and public services: The effects of radio access on public education in Benin. Retrieved from

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2009). The 2009 Kenya population and housing census. Retrieved from http://www.knbs.or.ke/

Kivikuru, U. (2006). Top-down or bottom-up? Radio in the service of democracy: Experiences from South Africa and Namibia. The International Communication

Gazette, 68(1), 5-31. doi: 10.1177/1748048506060113

Kombo, D., & Tromp, L. (2006). Proposal and thesis writing: An introduction. Nairobi:

Pauline Publications Africa.

96



Kombo, D., & Tromp, L. (2009). Proposal and thesis writing: An introduction. Nairobi:

Pauline Publications Africa.

Kothari, C. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd

ed.). New Delhi:

New Age International Limited, Publishers.

Kothari, C. R., & Garg, G. (2014). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (3rd

ed.). New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd

ed.).

New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society: The modernisation of the Middle East. New York: Free Press. Retrieved from

http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/pdf/socialchange.pdf

Maina, S., N. (2013). Communication strategies employed by Kenya community radio in fostering social cohesion and integration in Kenya. International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 1(5), 688-713.

Malik, A. (1996). Book Reviews. The Pakistan Development Review, 35(3), 288.

Manyozo, L. (2010). Mobilizing rural and community radio in Africa. African Journalism Studies, 30(1), 1-23. doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2009.9653389

Marras, S. (2008). Mapping the unmapped. Retrieved from http://mapkiberaproject.yolasite.com/resources/Kibera_mapping_the_unmapped/

Marshall, C., & Rossman, B. G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th

ed.).

Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Mavhungu, J. (2009). Formative target audience research: A case study of five community radio stations in South Africa. Retrieved from https://www.ru.ac.za/media/

Melkote, R. S., & Steeves, H. L. (2001). Communication for development in the third

world: Theory and practice for empowerment (2nd

ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Mercier, H. (2009). Media culpa? Community radio stations and the post- election violence. (Unpublished master‘s thesis). Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/

Mhlanga, B. (2010). The community in community radio: A case study of XK FM,

Interrogating issues of community participation, governance, and control. Ecquid

Novi: African Journalism Studies, 30(1), 58-72. doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2009.9653392

97



Mhlanga, B. (2006). Community radio as dialogic and participatory: A critical analysis of

governance, control and community participation, a case study of XK FM radio.

(Unpublished master‘s thesis). University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South

Africa. Retrieved from

http://ccms.ukzn.ac.za/Files/articles/MA_dissertations/mhlanga

Mikkelsen, B. (1995) Methods for development work and research: A guide for

practitioners. New Delhi and Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Millward, L. (2012). Focus groups. In G. M. Breakwell, J. A. Smith, & A. B. Wright (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 411- 437). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/

Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconstructing the role of interaction in analysing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 718-722.

Mrutu, E. K. (2003). Media and society in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Media Development Association & Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

Mtinde, L., Bonin, H., Maphiri, N., & Nyamaku, K. (1998). What is community radio? A resource guide. Panos Southern Africa: AMARC Africa.

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and

qualitative approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.

Mutisya, E., & Yarime, M. (2011). Understanding the grassroots dynamics of slums in Nairobi: The dilemma of Kibera informal settlements. Retrieved from

http://tuengr.com/V02/197-213.pdf

Myers, M. (2008). Radio and development in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.amarc.org/documents/manuals/

Nassanga, G. L. (2009). An assessment of the changing community media parameters in East Africa. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 30(1), 42-57. doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2009.9653391

Ochichi, P. J. (2014). An assessment of community radio in the context of rural development in Kenya. (Unpublished master‘s thesis). University of Nairobi,

Nairobi. Retrieved from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/

Olorunnisola, A. A. (2002). Community radio: Participatory communication in post

apartheid South Africa. Journal of Radio Studies, 9(1), 126-145. DOI:10.1207/s15506843jrs0901_11

Open Society foundation for South Africa. (1999). Community radio handbook. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.co.za/

Opoku-Mensah, A. (2000). The future of community radio in Africa. In R. Fardon & G.

Furniss (Eds.), African broadcast cultures: Radio in transition (pp. 165-173).

Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer Inc.

98



Orodho, A., & Kombo, D. (2002). Research methods. Nairobi: Kenyatta University Institute of Open Learning.

Oxfam. (2009). Urban poverty and vulnerability in Kenya. Background analysis for the preparation of an Oxfam GB urban programme focused on Nairobi. Retrieved

from http://www.irinnews.org/pdf/

Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in social research. London. Sage Publications Inc.

Penzhorn, C., & Msibi, F. (2010). Participatory communication for local government in

South Africa: A study of the Kungwini local municipality. Information Development, 26(3), 225–236. doi: 10.1177/0266666910376216

Prehn, O. (2002). Community media in the information age: Perspectives and prospects.

Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23(8), 1247–1263. Retrieved from http://preval.org/documentos/

Rahim, S. A. (2004). Participatory development communication as a dialogical process. In S. A.White, S. K. Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication:

Working for change and development (pp. 117–138). New Delhi: Sage

Publications Inc.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, S. R. ( 2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of interviewing (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Saeed, S. (2009). Negotiating power: community media, democracy, and the public sphere. Development in Practice, 19(4-5), 466-478. doi: 10.1080/09614520902866314

Saima, S. (2009). Negotiating power: community media, democracy, and the public sphere. Development in Practice, 19(4-5), 466-478. DOI: 10.1080/09614520902866314

Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press & UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

Servaes, J. (2008). Approaches to development communication. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/approaches_t o_development_communication.pdf

Servaes, J. (Ed.). (2002). Approaches to development: Studies on communication for

development. Paris: UNESCO.

Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2005). Participatory communication. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/

99



Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2002). Development communication approaches in an

international perspective. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Approaches to development: Studies on communication for development (pp.102-212). Paris: UNESCO.

Sesana, K. (2014). Kibera: The correct numbers. Retrieved from

http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/

Shulka, M. (2014). Democratizing information in India: Role of community radios as a developmental intervention. Vision, 18(4), 349–352. DOI: 10.1177/0972262914551662

Solervicens, M. (2007). Community radio social impact assessment: Removing barriers, increasing effectiveness. Montreal: AMAR.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Tabing, H. (2002). How to do the community radio. Paris: UNESCO.

Teklemicael, H. (2004). Ownership and control in community media: A case study of Highway radio and radio Matrizburg. (Unpublished master‘s thesis). University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa. Retrieved from http://ccms.ukzn.ac.za/

The Communication Initiative, Food and Agricultural Organisation & The World Bank. (2007). World congress on communication for development: Lessons, challenges and the way forward. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/

Thomas, P. (1994). Participatory development communication: Philosophical premises. In S. A. White, K. S. Nair, & J. Ascroft, (Eds.), Participatory communication:

Working for change and development (pp.49–59). New Delhi: Sage Publications

Inc.

Treisman, L. (2011). Pamoja FM: Giving a voice to Kibera slum. Retrieved from http://indigotrust.org.uk/pamoja-fm-giving-a-voice-to-kibera-slum/

Tucker, E. (2013). Community radio in political theory and development. Journal of Development and Communication Studies, 2(2), 392-413. Retrieved from

http://www.devcomsjournalmw.org.

Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide.

Washington, D. C: The World Bank.

Turow, J. (2009). Media today: An introduction to mass communications (3rd

ed.).

Madison Ave, New York: Routledge.

Umande Trust Kibera. (2007). The right to water and sanitation in Kibera in

Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from http://umande.org/

United Nations Communication for Development. (2011). Understanding communication for development. Retrieved from http://www.c4d.undg.org/what-c4d

100



United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1978). Meeting on self

management, access and participation in communication. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

Urgoiti, G. (1999). Community participation: The backbone of successful community

radio station. South Africa: Open Society Foundation.

Vandervelde, M. (1979). The semantics of participation in social work. Administration in Social Work, 3(1), 65–77. DOI:10.1300/J147v03n01_06

Waisbord, S. (2001). Family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies in development communication. Retrieved from http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/

White, R. (2008). Ten major lines of research on grassroots, participatory communication in Africa. African Communication Research, 1(1), 11- 45. Retrieved from http://ccms.ukzn.ac.za/

White, S. A. (1994). Introduction: The concept of participation: Transforming rhetoric to

reality. In. S. White, K. S. Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and development (pp. 15–33). New Delhi: Sage Publications.

101



APPENDIX A: Focus Group Discussion Guide (Community Listener Group/Youth)


Study objectives to be addressed 1) To find out the understanding of the term participation from the perspective of

Pamoja FM staff / management and Kibera community. 2) To discover how members of the Kibera community participate in the running of

Pamoja FM including participation through access, management, content development and programming.

Introduction

My name is Muthoni Muthuri. I will be conducting group discussions as part of a school

project on ―Examining community radio as a participatory communication medium in Kibera: A case of Pamoja FM.‖ By this I am looking at meanings attached to participation, ways in which you as the community audience interact with Pamoja FM, how the station

interacts with you and what you feel about those approaches. To address this relationship

between Pamoja FM and Kibera community will require talking to you as the listener

group on your opinions and experiences of participation with Pamoja FM.

This discussion will be conducted in the following manner; I will ask a question and we

will take turns responding. There is no right or wrong answer we simply seek you opinions

and experiences and we would like to hear as many diverse thoughts as possible so feel

free to disagree and respond to another person‘s point, however only one person can talk

at a time. I assure you that our discussion will be completely confidential you can use only

your first name or nickname if you wish. Thanks.

Introductory Questions - How long have you lived in Kibera?

- How would you describe Kibera? (probe on life in Kibera, people of Kibera)

- How often do you listen to Pamoja FM? Do you think many people listen to Pamoja?

Key Questions

Kibera as the Community listeners 1) In your view, what role is the community expected to play in a CR like Pamoja FM?

2) Do you think people in Kibera play this role? Why or why not?

Pamoja FM as a Community Radio

3) What does the term community radio mean to you? Could you thus describe Pamoja

FM as a community radio? Why? (Probe: reasons people associate CR as so) 4) What in your opinion is the purpose of Pamoja FM? (do you think it has brought the

people of Kibera together? How?

102



5) Over the years Pamoja FM has been broadcasting, do you think it has grown to

represent the people of Kibera and their needs? How?

Participation

6) What do you understand by the word participation in community radio? (what do you

think it involves) 7) Do you think people in Kibera are interested in participating or being involved in the

support or running Pamoja FM? Why or why not? 8) Do you think Pamoja FM makes enough effort to interact/ or involve the community in

its running? 9) As a listener group, can you describe the ways in which you are involved in supporting

Pamoja FM? (researcher to probe on what their role really is, matters discussed during

their meetings, various ways of participation mentioned which will also touch on their

understanding of participation)

Participatory Strategies – access, participation, dialogue 10) Have any of you have ever visited the Pamoja FM studios? acc (How do you find its

location..is it easy to reach? How do you find the place/ people/reception? 11) What are your favourite programmes in Pamoja FM? Why? 12) Has any of you, or do you know of anyone who has ever been approached by Pamoja

FM staff for an opinion on content/topics of shows or anything to do with the station? 13) Do you think the programmes in Pamoja FM discuss topics relevant to or that reflect

the needs of Kibera community? 14) Does the station give you a chance to comment/ contribute on what kind of

programmes you‘d like or topics to be aired? How? Do you think they should give the

community a chance to contribute on content for programmes or choosing topics to be aired?

15) How do you give your views/ comments or provide feedback on any shows or anything to do with Pamoja FM?

16) What content/topics/dev. issues would you like Pamoja FM to address in their programmes that you feel is currently not being sufficiently addressed? What kind of programmes would you like to see?

17) Do you think Pamoja FM can do more to encourage participation in the community?

In what way would you suggest?

Closing Questions 18) In your view, do you think the community should be given a chance to make decisions

in Pamoja FM?

103



APPENDIX B: Focus Group Discussion Guide (Children)


Study objectives to be addressed 1) To find out the understanding of the term participation from the perspective of

Pamoja FM staff / management and Kibera community. 2) To discover how members of the Kibera community participate in the running of

Pamoja FM including participation through access, management, content development and programming.

- How would you describe Kibera? (probe on life in Kibera, people of Kibera)

- How often do you listen to Pamoja FM?

Key Questions

Kibera as the Community listeners

1) What role do you think children should play in a CR station like Pamoja FM?


2) What does the term community radio mean to you? Can you describe Pamoja FM

as a community radio? Why? (Probe: reasons people associate CR as so) 3) Do you think Pamoja FM has brought the people of Kibera together? How?

Participation

4) What do you think is the meaning of the word participation in community radio?

(what do you think it involves) 5) How do you participate in Pamoja FM?

Participatory Strategies – access, participation, dialogue 6) Have any of you have ever visited the Pamoja FM studios? (How do you find its

location..is it easy to reach? How do you find the place/ people/presenters? 7) Do you think many children listen to Pamoja FM? Why or Why not?

8) What are your favourite programmes in Pamoja FM? Why? 9) Do you think the programmes in Pamoja FM discuss topics important to or that

reflect the needs of children in Kibera community? 10) What topics would you like Pamoja FM to talk about in their programmes that you

feel are not there now? What kind of children programmes would you like to see? 11) Do you think Pamoja FM should give the children of Kibera a chance to choose

topics to be aired or content for programmes? Do you think children should be given an opportunity to present a show on themselves? Why?

12) Has any of you ever been approached by somebody who works at Pamoja FM to participate in a show or give an opinion on anything to do with the station? How

104



do you give your views/ comments or provide feedback on any shows or anything to do with Pamoja FM?

13) Do you think Pamoja FM can do more to encourage participation with children in

the community? In what way would you suggest?

Closing Questions

14) In your view do you think children should be given a chance to make decisions in Pamoja FM?

105



APPENDIX C: In depth interview guide (Head of trainees of Pamoja FM).


Study objectives to be addressed. 1) To describe the participatory communication strategies Pamoja FM uses to involve

the Kibera community in development. 2) To find out the understanding of the term ‗participation‘ from the perspective of

Pamoja FM staff / management and Kibera community.

Introductory Questions How did you come to work at Pamoja FM? Why Community Radio? Do you live in

Kibera? How long?


1) What does community radio mean to you? 2) How would you describe the role/purpose of Pamoja FM in Kibera?

Kibera as the Community

3) In your view, what do you think is the role of a community in CR broadcasting? Do you think the people in Kibera community play that role?

4) How would you define the relationship between Pamoja FM and Kibera community? (Do you think they consider you their ‗voice‘ if so, why?)

Participation

The station has two principles of operation Participation and access

5) In your opinion, how would you describe the term participation as used in CR? 6) In your view, do you think Pamoja FM actively interacts with the community

members?How? Can you say Pamoja FM is a participatory communication

medium in Kibera? Why? 7) In your opinion, do you think the community actively participates in the station‘s

life? Why? Or why not? How would you rank the level of community participation between Pamoja FM and Kibera community?

Participatory Strategies – Participation – involvement of public in production process, management, planning; Programming, content generation, audience participation

8) Give me a description of your role in Pamoja FM. 9) How do you get content for news? (how do you involve the community in news

production? 10) What entails the training of reporters at Pamoja FM? What do you think about the

training? is it adequate? As would you improve on?

106



11) Do you think programmes in Pamoja FM encourage participation of the

community? why? 12) What are some of the programmes in Pamoja FM that you believe provide a

platform for the involvement of the community?

Closing Questions

13) In your view, do you think the community should be involved in making decisions – such as policy planning, programming content etc at Pamoja FM? To what extent would you recommend community involvement at Pamoja FM? Would you

recommend complete control, participation and running of Pamoja FM radio station by the community? Why or why not?

14) How do you think Pamoja FM can improve on its participatory efforts toward the community.

107



APPENDIX D: In depth interview guide (Founder/MD of Pamoja FM).


Study objectives to be addressed 1) To describe the participatory communication strategies Pamoja FM uses to involve



Introductory Question

Take me through the history of Pamoja FM… How and why was it established?

Community Radio

1) What does the idea of community radio mean to you? Do you then consider Pamoja FM fitting in such?

2) What would you say is the purpose for Pamoja FM in Kibera community?

Kibera Community

3) Let‘s talk about the audience… How would you describe the people of Kibera? 4) How can you describe the relationship between Pamoja FM and Kibera community

e.g. Do you think they consider you their ‗voice‘ if so, why? 5) In your opinion, what do you think is the role of Kibera community in running or

supporting a CR like Pamoja FM? 6) In your opinion, do you think the community actively participates in supporting the

station in the roles you mentioned? Why? Or why not?

Participation

The station policy, has two principles it operates on; access and participation. 7) In your opinion, how would you define the term participation?

Participatory Strategies between Kibera community and Pamoja FM

8) In what ways does Pamoja FM engage/involve the community in broadcasting?

9) How do you know the needs that people want addressed in Kibera via Pamoja?

10) What is the purpose Pamoja FM‘s internship/ training?

Self-Management, participation (planning)

11) What is the role of the board PDC in relation to Pamoja FM? Who elects them? 12) Who comes up with the formulation of communication policies and plans Pamoja?

Closing Questions

13) I read a statement you made once, in an interview you had in 2010 that was published in a thesis, you said, and I quote, I have my plan as a community radio station, and what we want to do for the community with what we can. But soon I

108



want to leave the station to the community and watch from the bleachers. That is

the ideal of course (A. Hussein, personal communication, 8/27/10 Conrad, 2011,

p.131). It‘s been 5 years since you made that statement, How close do you think

you are to this ideal, i.e. leaving the station to the community? 14) What is your vision for Pamoja FM in the next 5-10 years? How would you like to

see the participation grow between Pamoja and Kibera community in the future? 15) How do you think Pamoja FM can improve on its participatory efforts toward

involving the community?

109



APPENDIX E: In depth interview guide (Head of programming/presenters/).


Study objectives to be addressed. 1) To describe the participatory communication strategies Pamoja FM uses to involve



Introductory Questions How did you come to work at Pamoja FM? Why Community Radio? Do you live in

Kibera? How long?


1) What does community radio mean to you?

2) How would you describe the role/purpose of Pamoja FM in Kibera?

Kibera as the Community 3) In your view, what do you think is the role of a community in CR broadcasting?

Do you think the people in Kibera community play that role? 4) How would you define the relationship between Pamoja FM and Kibera

community? (Do you think they consider you their ‗voice‘ if so, why?)

Participation

The station has two principles of operation Participation and access

5) In your opinion, how would you describe the term participation as used in CR? 6) In your opinion, do you think the community actively participates in the station‘s

life? Why? Or why not? How would you rank the level of community participation between Pamoja FM and Kibera community?

Participatory Strategies – Participation – involvement of public in production process, management, planning; Programming, content generation, audience participation

7) Give me a description about your show? (name of show; what motivated you to initiate the programme? What was the need for the show? objectives of the show; Target audience?)

8) How do you generate content for your programme? (do you involve the community in generating content for the programme? How?)

9) How do you know the needs that people want addressed in the station?

10) How do you identify the problems in the community to address on air? 11) Do you think your show/programmes helps to generate debate in the community?

how? (does the show help people identify their collective problem?).

110



12) In what ways do you involve the community to become a part of the show? (How

are community members involved in programme production? 13) How does the community give you feedback on the programme/s? (fdb access) 14) Do members of the community at times suggest to you what / issues/ topics they

want to hear in the show that you should touch on? How do you address that?

Closing Questions

15) In your view, do you think the community should be involved in making decisions – such as policy planning, programming content etc at Pamoja FM? To what extent would you recommend community involvement at Pamoja FM? Why or why not?

16) How would you like to see the relationship grow between Pamoja FM and the community audience in the future?

17) How do you think Pamoja FM can improve on its participatory efforts toward the community.

111



APPENDIX F: NACOSTI Research permit

112



113



APPENDIX G: Consent of Child Participation in Academic Study

114



examining community radio as a participatory …

Documents