Content uploaded by Antony Somba Mang’Oka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antony Somba Mang’Oka on Nov 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 21
Mara International Journal of Social Sciences Research Publications
Vol. 1, No. 1, September 2017, Pages 21 - 29
A White Elephant? A Critical Look at the Usefulness of the Communication
Channels used by the Kibera Slum Residents, Kenya
Lilian Kimeto*
1
and Antony Somba
1Communication Department, Daystar University, Kenya
2Department of Education, Kabarak University, Kenya
Email: liliankimeto@gmail.com, asomba@kabarak.ac.ke
* Corresponding author
Received: June 23, 2017
Published: August 29, 2017
Abstract
Communication is very central to human life, and as such, it is important to continue to interrogate the usefulness of
this human phenomenon. This paper delves at the intrigues of communication in slums; specifically it takes a critical
look at the communication channels that are used by the slum dwellers at Kibera, Kenya. The thrust of the paper was
to examine whether these channels were helpful or not. A list of all the 12 communication channels contained in the
communication strategy was tabulated. A 13th column was added for other channels, which are used but not among
the 12 listed in the communication strategy. Of the 12 communication channels listed, some are mass media, other
participatory while others interpersonal and group. In the final analysis the paper established that the communication
approach the government used to communicate with Kibera residents was top-down, monologic, vertical
communication. Yet the community preferred horizontal, dialogic, group and interpersonal communication
approaches.
Keywords: communication channels, kibera, top-down, monologic communication
© 2016 by the author(s); Mara Research Journals (Nairobi, Kenya; Vancouver Canada) OPEN ACCESS
1. INTRODUCTION
The Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) can be traced back to the Habitat Agenda and the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed upon by United Nations member states in September
2000. The Habitat agenda enshrines the enabling approach to shelter, with a focus on principles of social
inclusion. This agenda, which was adopted by the 1996 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements
(Habitat) held in Istanbul, challenged governments to use shelter development as a tool to break the cycle
of poverty, homelessness and unemployment (UN Habitat, 2008).
In 2000, a total of 189 UN member states agreed upon Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Their
governments adopted what was referred to as the Millennium Declaration, committing themselves to a set
of eight goals, with 18 targets and 48 indicators to be achieved by 2015. Later on in October 2004, the
Government of Kenya established the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP) to steer the realization
of that target in Kenya (GOK, 2005; UN Habitat, 2008).
UN Habitat (2003b), the UN agency that handles human settlement issues, acknowledged the need to
enhance the effectiveness of slum policies by fully involving the urban poor. It has been recognised as a
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 22
right for the poor to be able to play a key role in improving their own living conditions by participating in
decision making (UN Habitat, 2003b).
According to the GOK (2005), KENSUP is envisaged to provide a proper framework for the realization of
Millennium Development Goal number seven, Target 11. This target seeks to improve the lives of at least
100 million slum dwellers globally by 2020.
In Kenya, KENSUP is the MDG vehicle that seeks to improve the livelihoods of at least 5.3 million urban
slum dwellers. This is approximately 1.6 million households living and working in slums in Kenya’s urban
areas. KENSUP is a 15-year program (2005-2020) with a budgetary outlay of US$ 11.5 billion, which
would contribute to poverty reduction for slum residents in the country. The KENSUP implementers came
up with four key expected programmatic outcomes as follows: getting slum dwellers in Kenya organised
for active participation in the upgrading process; harmonising the needs, interests and attitudes of the slum
dwellers; soliciting, harnessing and harmonising stakeholder participation; and lastly, contributing to and
enhancing the ability of the program units and stakeholders to efficiently execute their tasks (Senteu, 2006).
The four program outcomes outlined above are related to participation and communication. The
implementers settled on four program outcomes, because slum upgrading is social, both as a process and
program. Its effectiveness and eventual success can best be realized, through an integrated institutional
framework that accommodates participatory approaches involving relevant stakeholders, particularly the
benefiting communities (GOK, 2005). It is within this framework that KENSUP designed a communication
strategy to address the communication challenges it was facing.
This paper pays a closer attention to the communication channels used in Kibera, to examine their
usefulness or their none usefulness. In order to achieve this objective, the study was carried out at the
Kibera relocation site that sits between the Langata Women Prison and Kisumu Ndogo slum village of
Kibera. According to GOK (2005) Kibera informal settlements began in 1912 as a resettlement area for the
Nubians returning from World War One. The colonial government then allowed settlements to grow,
opening for settlement by other tribes from across the country. Although, the first government of the
Republic of Kenya declared the Kibera settlements illegal in 1963, the slums continued to grow from as
little as 6,000 people in 1965, to around one million by the time of the 2009 National Population Census.
2. COMMUNICATION CHANNELS USED IN KIBERA SLUMS
This paper explored whether the communication channels preferred by Kibera residents were used to
communicate to them. According to Rogers (2003), the second element of the diffusion of innovations
process is communication channels. He added that communication is a process in which participants create
and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding. Rogers (2003) also
observed that this communication occurs through channels between sources, which in this case could be
individuals or institutions that originate a message.
Rogers further stated that mass media and interpersonal communication are dynamic small group
communication channels. Of the two, mass media channels are TV, radio, or newspaper while interpersonal
channels are largely a two-way communication between two or more individuals. Rogers (2003) also noted
that diffusion is a very social process that involves interpersonal communication relationships. According
to the KENSUP communication strategy (GOK, 2005a, p.12):
The Settlement Executive Committee (SEC) as identified as the most important arena for
strengthening participatory communication processes in the community and link them to the
government structure. The SEC is supposed to select correct and relevant information from the
community and forward balanced and trustworthy opinions to the decision makers. To support the
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 23
SEC in their communication with the members of the community are other channels which are
either mass media or interpersonal.
While Rodgers (2003) definition point to interpersonal media, Schramm (1979) paid attention to mass
media as tools to promote national development goals with power to inspire individuals to act and think in
modern, western ways. The dependency scholars argued that the media were used to promote cultural
imperialism/keeping power in the hands of wealthier nations. The participatory approaches drew attention
to the power of local communities to recognise and resolve social concerns. The recent emergence of social
movements complements participatory approaches by emphasizing the ability of marginal communities to
control their own social change (Wilkins, 1999). See Table 1 for the result from the data analysis.
Table 1: List of Communication Channels Used by the KENSUP Officers to Communicate with
Respondents (The respondents were allowed Multiple responses)
Response Percentage (%)
Seminars 80 80
Letters 77 77
Posters 53 53
Meetings with the caretaker 29 29
Opinion leaders 15 15
Meetings at the Ministry Headquarters 13 13
Television 8 8
Newspapers
8
8
Public meetings 5 5
Newsletter 3 3
Website 0 0
Video programs
0
0
Mobile cinemas 0 0
Information centre 0 0
Media visits 0 0
Breakfast meetings 0 0
Hotline/toll free number 0 0
Drama 0 0
From Table 1, the channels used to communicate to the respondents were seminars at 80%, letters (77%)
and posters 53%, while 29% of the respondents pointed out meetings with the caretaker at his office, which
also doubled up as the information centre. The communication channels the respondents ticked as being
used to communicate with them were mass media and /or participatory. They were dialogic and/or
monologic. A key finding here was that 8 of the 12 communication channels listed in the KENSUP
communication strategy were not used. No respondent could recall the use of a website; video programs,
mobile cinemas, media visits, media visits and hotline/toll free number. Some of the communication
channels being used by KENSUP officials to communicate with the community in Kibera had not been
proposed in the communication strategy. These include letters, posters and use of opinion leaders (who are
not part of the SEC). One participant at the Focus Group Discussion said,
The government officers decide to use communication channels convenient to them. When we
were asked to propose communication channels no one talked about the use of mobile cinemas,
video programs, drama, media visits, breakfast meetings, website or the toll-free number. We just
saw them in the final document. At least we have been to the seminars. The seminars are popular
with the community, because we are given a free Ksh 500. We also meet face to face with the
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 24
Ministry’s hierarchy who provide direct answers on the now controversial issues of moving back to
Soweto. But these seminars are not even frequent. The KENSUP officials prefer to send us letters
and posters pinned on the walls when communicating with the community here (SEC FGD, 7 May,
2015).
From that narrative the researcher inferred that in answer to Question C2, which sought to find out the
communication channels being used by KENSUP officials to communicate with the community, letters
(77%) and posters (53%) were rated as the two most popular communication channels used by KENSUP
officials to communicate with the community at the KRS. The use of these two communication channels
pointed to a vertical communication from the government when disseminating the issues/messages to the
community.
When the respondents were asked to tick on the messages disseminated to them through the
communication channels listed in the KENSUP communication strategy. The findings were as indicated in
Table 2:
Table 2: The List of Messages the Respondents Said were Disseminated to them Through the
Communication Channels Listed in the KENSUP Communication Strategy
Message communicated to the community
Response
Percentage (%)
Housing cooperatives 97 94
Slum upgrading procedures 94 97
The community-government partnership 92 92
Slum upgrading benefits
93
93
Total of participants 100 100
The findings as shown in Table 2 show that the messages were well disseminated. An average of over 90%
of the questionnaire respondents agreed they had heard about all four messages. This shows that the
messages on KENSUP were disseminated and understood. According to the GOK (2005 p. 6), the
KENSUP communication strategy aimed to disseminate message that the livelihoods of people living and
working in slums would improve through the slum upgrading process.
The messages listed in Table 2 were derived from that general message and disseminated through the
various communication channels to the slum residents at different times, with the aim of getting them to
accept, own and support the program. According to the Communication consultant, the messages were
designed at a workshop with stakeholders, where participants worked in groups to come out with the
messages that should be communicated to the various stakeholders. The groups then presented their views
to the plenary where the messages were discussed and clarified before being included in the strategy
(Communication consultant, in-depth interview, May 22 2015).
Following on the above contention, this paper indicates that the type of communication channels that are
being used to disseminate messages may not have been fully agreed upon, but were anyway still effective
disseminating the messages. The respondents to the questionnaire were also asked to tick from the list
provided for the communication channels government uses to receive feedback from them on the
communication strategy. The findings are as indicated in Table 3:
Table 3: Communication Channels Used by Government Officials to Get Feedback from the Community.
Response Percentage (%)
Public meetings 32 32
Opinion leaders/SEC 21 21
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 25
Letters 20 20
Word of mouth 7 7
Non responsive 35 35
Total 100 100
Feedback from the community on the communication methods being used by government to reach to them
were public meetings (32%) and opinion leaders/ SEC. Some of the respondents (7%) said the government
officials used word of mouth to talk to them. Some of responses that varied from “the caretaker spoke to us
personally”, to, “the Director, Charles Sikuku spoke one on one with me”. Also, 35% of the respondents
did tick on any of the communication channels provided in the Table 3. Some did not have answers. For
some respondents, (35%) indicated that there was a general apathy during the sampling period, and this
could still be related to the 28% respondents, who declined to take part in the study. According to Frey et al
(2000), people are more likely to respond if the topic being investigated is important to them or if they
believe they are contributing to an important cause. Right from the pre-test to the real sampling exercise
there are residents at Kibera relocation site who don’t see any value KENSUP is adding to their lives.
The researcher inferred that there was an effective feedback on issues about the communication strategy
KENSUP was using as the framework of communicating with KRS residents. However, the 35% non-
responses were also significant and pointed to a feedback system that was not 100% effective.
Question C4 was in three parts. In part one , the respondents to the questionnaire were asked to tick which
communication channels did they think were available/can be used at the KRS and the responses were as
indicated in Table 4.
Table 4: List of Communication Channels Respondents Said Were Available and can be used to receive at
the Relocation Site
Response Percentage
Social groups (welfare, church, chama, youth ) 21 21
Public meetings (Seminars)
Letters/Memos
17
15
17
15
Community radio
Short text messages(sms)
Social media
Newsletters
Information Centre
Posters
Media Visits
Video Programs
Drama
Mobile Cinemas
Website
Breakfast meetings
15
10
8
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
10
8
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
The findings from Table 4 show that the most available communication channel was social gatherings and
interpersonal communication networks that exist within that community at 21%. According to Linus
Siyenji, the UN Habitat officer in charge of Youth programs and who works closely with KENSUP:
Enhancing & disseminating
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
texts and social media were rated at 10% and 8% in popularity
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
community
interpersonal communicati
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
influencing the decision to adopt or reject those ideas.
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
channels. Howeve
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
2015)
The second part of Question C4 (b) asked the residents of t
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
activities. A total of 50 respondents said seminars
been us
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
that is available and can be used to pass information t
an answer. This was a significant non response and could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
respondents seemed to acknowledge receipt of
:
Fig. 1
Enhancing & disseminating
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
community take place there as well. They include social gather
religious meetings, social groups for differ
depth interview, April 24, 2015)
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
texts and social media were rated at 10% and 8% in popularity
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
community
,
and through which they receive information from
interpersonal communicati
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
influencing the decision to adopt or reject those ideas.
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
channels. Howeve
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
2015)
The second part of Question C4 (b) asked the residents of t
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
activities. A total of 50 respondents said seminars
been us
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
that is available and can be used to pass information t
an answer. This was a significant non response and could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
respondents seemed to acknowledge receipt of
Fig. 1
:
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
Community
Enhancing & disseminating
Global
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
community take place there as well. They include social gather
religious meetings, social groups for differ
depth interview, April 24, 2015)
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
texts and social media were rated at 10% and 8% in popularity
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
and through which they receive information from
interpersonal communicati
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
influencing the decision to adopt or reject those ideas.
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
channels. Howeve
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
The second part of Question C4 (b) asked the residents of t
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
activities. A total of 50 respondents said seminars
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
that is available and can be used to pass information t
an answer. This was a significant non response and could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
respondents seemed to acknowledge receipt of
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
Community
Global
Scholarly Publications
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications
,
Vol.
1
,
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
community take place there as well. They include social gather
religious meetings, social groups for differ
depth interview, April 24, 2015)
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
texts and social media were rated at 10% and 8% in popularity
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
and through which they receive information from
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
influencing the decision to adopt or reject those ideas.
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
The second part of Question C4 (b) asked the residents of t
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
activities. A total of 50 respondents said seminars
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
that is available and can be used to pass information t
an answer. This was a significant non response and could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
respondents seemed to acknowledge receipt of
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
Scholarly Publications
,
No.
1
,
Aug
.
2017
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
community take place there as well. They include social gather
religious meetings, social groups for differ
ent categories such as youth and women (UN Habitat in
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
texts and social media were rated at 10% and 8% in popularity
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
and through which they receive information from
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
influencing the decision to adopt or reject those ideas.
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
The second part of Question C4 (b) asked the residents of t
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
activities. A total of 50 respondents said seminars
was
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
that is available and can be used to pass information t
o them. However, 48% of respondents did not provide
an answer. This was a significant non response and could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
respondents seemed to acknowledge receipt of
i
nformation as seen in Fig. 1
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
www.mijsrp.org
2017
,
Pages
21
-
29
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
community take place there as well. They include social gather
ent categories such as youth and women (UN Habitat in
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
texts and social media were rated at 10% and 8% in popularity
,
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
and through which they receive information from
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
influencing the decision to adopt or reject those ideas.
The UN Habitat officer added that “There exist very
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
The second part of Question C4 (b) asked the residents of t
he KRS which of the communication channels,
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
was
a communication channel that was available and has
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
o them. However, 48% of respondents did not provide
an answer. This was a significant non response and could
be attributed to three factors:
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
nformation as seen in Fig. 1
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
www.mijsrp.org
29
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
community take place there as well. They include social gather
ings,
Chamas
ent categories such as youth and women (UN Habitat in
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
,
respectively
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
and through which they receive information from
,
seem to be based around group and
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
The UN Habitat officer added that “There exist very
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
he KRS which of the communication channels,
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
a communication channel that was available and has
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
o them. However, 48% of respondents did not provide
be attributed to three factors:
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
nformation as seen in Fig. 1
.
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
Mara
International
There exist very strong social structures within Kibera. Conversations about what
is
Chamas
, welfare groups, and
ent categories such as youth and women (UN Habitat in
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
respectively
totaling
to 18% of use of
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
seem to be based around group and
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
channels of communication are more effective in forming and changing attitudes
toward the new ideas and
The UN Habitat officer added that “There exist very
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
found them useful in delivering official information” (UN Habitat Officer, In
-
depth interview April 24,
he KRS which of the communication channels,
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
a communication channel that was available and has
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
o them. However, 48% of respondents did not provide
be attributed to three factors:
One, there could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
International
Journals
is
going on in the
, welfare groups, and
ent categories such as youth and women (UN Habitat in
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
to 18% of use of
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
seem to be based around group and
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
community and that is where information exchange takes place. According to Rogers (2003),
interpersonal
toward the new ideas and
The UN Habitat officer added that “There exist very
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
depth interview April 24,
he KRS which of the communication channels,
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
a communication channel that was available and has
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
o them. However, 48% of respondents did not provide
One, there could
have been interviewer fatigue; two, this could be an indicator that they could not recall a commun
ication
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
Journals
26
going on in the
, welfare groups, and
ent categories such as youth and women (UN Habitat in
-
Seminars were also listed as an available communication forum by 17% of respondents. Short message
to 18% of use of
modern technology to communicate. Most of the communication channels which are available to this
seem to be based around group and
on. There seemed to be very strong social groups and networks within this
interpersonal
toward the new ideas and
The UN Habitat officer added that “There exist very
strong social structures within the community and this could be exploited as participatory communication
r, the government officials view those social networks as rumour mills, and have not
depth interview April 24,
he KRS which of the communication channels,
available within the community, were used by KENSUP officials to communicate to them about KENSUP
a communication channel that was available and has
ed to update them on KENSUP activities. 8% of the respondents mentioned the meetings they have
with the caretaker at his office when they go to pay rent or register concerns as a communication channel
o them. However, 48% of respondents did not provide
One, there could
ication
channel (of the available ones) the government is using to communicate with them and lastly the wording
of question itself may not have assisted the respondents to provide an answer. Only a total of 58
Communication Channels(that are available )and Government prefers using to Communicate to the
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 27
The list of communication channels preferred by the community are as seen in Table 5:
Table 5:
List of Communication Channels the Respondents Preferred the Government to Uses when
Communicating to them on KENSUP Issues (The respondents were allowed multiple responses)
Response Percentage
Face to face meetings 90 90
Social groups(Church, Chama,welfare meetings, etc) 68 68
New media( sms, social media)
39
39
Caretakers meetings 21 21
Community radio 15 15
IEC materials 13 13
A total of 90% of respondents said they preferred face to face meetings for communication, 68% preferred
social groups while 39% proposed new media like short text messages. Further, 21% respondents saw their
meetings with the caretaker as a good way of receiving messages from and communicating with the
government while 15 respondents preferred using community radio to do so. The paper inferred that the
community had faith in face to face meetings as they were dialogic, participatory and allowed for
immediate feedback. The community seemed to prefer interpersonal and group communication channels.
The inference here is that the two most preferrred channels allow for dialogue and engagement between all
parties something the community seems very keen about.
3. DISCUSSIONS AND WAY FORWARD
The findings of this paper second research question asked if the communication channels used to
communicate to Kibera residents were the ones they preferred. In Question C1, the respondents were asked
to tick which of 12 types of communication channels listed in the KENSUP communication strategy were
used to communicate with them. 82% of the respondents ticked seminars, 77 % letters, 53% posters 29%
meetings with the caretaker, 15% opinion leaders,13% meetings at the Ministry headquarters,5% public
meetings, newsletter 3% and a total of 16% TV and newspapers. From these responses, only four of the 12
communication channels proposed in the KENSUP communication strategy were being utilised by
KENSUP officers to communicate with the residents of Kibera relocation site. None of the respondents
could recall receiving KENSUP messages through community radios, video programs, website,
newsletters, media visits, breakfast meetings or the website. From the FGD it emerged that the choices of
the communication channels to be used was done by the KENSUP officers without the input of the SEC,
who represent the community. Also the popularity of seminars among the community was owing to a
stipend paid out to them as well as meeting KENSUP officers face to face. Another important observation
is the use of letters and posters, both of which are monologic, vertical and top-down forms of
communication, to pass information the community.
When asked about the communication channels used by KENSUP officers to get feedback about the
program, 32% of the respondents ticked public meetings, 21% ticked opinion leaders, 20% ticked letters
and 7% word of mouth. The inference here is that the community views public meetings as the
communication channel that best allows them give their feedback about the program.
When further asked about the communication channels that are readily available in Kibera, 21% said there
are groups/meetings such as church, Chamas, block, welfare as well as funeral meetings etc. The inference
here is that social groups/networks are the most available and preferred communication channels at the
Kibera relocation site and corroborated by the qualitative data from the UN Habitat officer who said there
exist very strong social groups and networks within the community in Kibera.
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 28
A total of 17% said public meetings such as seminar are available. A total of 15% ticked communication
from KENSUP officers using letters, posters and memos while 15% of the respondents said community
radio is available in Kibera. A total of 18% (10+ 8) ticked SMS and social media are available
communication channels. 4% of the respondents say TV is available within the community and 4%
mentioned the caretaker’s office which doubles up as the information centre.
Borrowing from Reynolds & Tommy (2002), the social groups and interpersonal networks the community
preferred for interaction and information exchange with the KENSUP officers appeared to be compatible
with their capacity, and the structural factors of the KENSUP, which is a social program. However, these
are informal communication channels and were not listed in the communication strategy but as Elske
(2007) suggested that instead of applying a standard set of recipes from toolbox, a situation specific
processes need to be designed with clear and mutually agreed objectives. Probably this points to the need to
get the community to suggest the kind of communication strategy that can work for them.
The government could be using letters, posters, letters, newspapers, newsletter, Television and radio
because they were accessible to them as government officers and easy to use. However, for the members of
local communities, because of their low gross primary enrolment rate, they preferred face to face meetings
and social groups, which do not require some level of literacy like those mass media channels such as
radio, television, books and newspapers. Also Kibera residents prefer their social networks, which don’t
require much from them, are their regular sources of most information and the language used is familiar to
them, and everyone has the opportunity to speak up openly and without any discrimination over the issues
being discussed or views they present.
This phenomenon brings the essence of the diffusion process is the information exchange through which
one individual communicates a new idea to one or several others. They identified two types of
communication channels, mass media and interpersonal communication. Of these two types of
communication channels, the community in Kibera seemed to have preferred interpersonal communication,
which involved face to face exchange between two or more individuals and as such could be centred upon
certain characteristics. This mode of communication was relied upon because the slum residents had
similar backgrounds in terms of the challenges they faced, their social status and value system,
communication took place easily among them. This is what Rogers (2003) referred to as homophily, which
is the degree to which two or more individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes such as beliefs,
education, social status.
4. CONCLUSION
The findings of this paper has established that communication approach the government used to
communicate with Kibera residents was top-down, monologic, vertical communication. Yet the community
preferred horizontal, dialogic, group and interpersonal communication approaches. Kibera residents who
took part in this study suggested that the government ought to have used face to face meetings as they seem
to be very keen on being involved in decision making and being given feedback as well as correct
information. They prefer that messages/information comes through their social groups, the interpersonal
communication networks existing within the community as well as social /new media to create and
disseminate messages to them, as beneficiaries of KENSUP.
5. REFERENCES
Elske, V. D. (2007). Participatory communication in rural development.
Extension Farming Systems, 6
(1),
715-800.
Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Aug. 2017, Pages 21 - 29 29
Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000).
Investigating communication: An introduction to research
method
s (2
nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
GOK. (2005).
KENSUP communication strategy
. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Reynolds, G. J., & Tommy, J. (2002).
Good practice in PRSP indicators and monitoring system.
London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.
Rogers, E. M. (2003).
The diffussion of innovations
(5th ed.). New york: The Free Press.
Schramm, W. (1979).
Mass media and national development.
Paris: UNESCO.
Senteu, J. (2006).
KENSUP capacity building assessment report and work plan
. Dana Consult
International.
UN-Habitat. (2003a).
The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements in 2003.
Nairobi: UN-
Habitat.
UN-Habitat. (2003b).
Slums of the world: The face of urban poverty in the new millennium?
Nairobi
:
UN-
Habitat.
UN-Habitat. (2008).
State of the world’s cities: 2008/2009 harmonious cities.
London: United Nations
Human Settlements Programme.
Wilkins, K. G. (1999). Development discourse on gender and communication in strategies for social
change.
Journal of Commuincation
,
2
(1), 46-68.
Cite this article:
Kimeto, L. (2017). A White Elephant? A Critical Look at the Usefulness of the Communication Channels
used by the Kibera Slum Residents, Kenya.
Mara International Journal of Social Sciences
Research Publication,
Vol. 1, No. 1, Pages 21 - 29
