Application of the Principles of Participatory Communication in the Design and Implementation of the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP)

Full text

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 7
Mara International Journal of Social Sciences Research Publications
Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20
Application of the Principles of Participatory Communication in the Design
and Implementation of the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP)
Lilian Kimeto*
1
and Antony Somba
2
1
Communication Department, Daystar University, Kenya
2
Department of Education, KabarakUniversity, Kenya
Email: liliankimeto@gmail.com, asomba@kabarak.ac.ke
* Corresponding author
Received: June 23, 2017
Published: July 3, 2017
Abstract
This paper is an interrogation of the principles of participatory communication in the design and implementation of
the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP). The paper used Kibera as a case study. It adopted a descriptive
research design, which used both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect and analyse data. The data collection
instruments were questionnaires (Quantitative), a focus group discussion and interviewing key informants
(Qualitative). As the findings showed, the paper concludes by arguing that there was dialogue, community
engagement, participation but not empowerment and that was why there was no buy-in of the communication strategy
and ownership of the program as a whole. This paper has established that the principles of participatory
communication were integrated into the design and implementation of the KENSUP communication strategy at
Kibera. It emerged that there was dialogue, community engagement and participation although empowerment/heard
voice was hoped for, but was not attained. The dialogue, engagement and participation of the community in the
program were at different levels. On empowerment, the community felt their voice was not heard when decisions
about the program were being made. This finding points out that, yes, participation had taken place but only to the
level of consultation.
Keywords: KENSUP, kibera, communication, informants, dialogue
© 2016 by the author(s); Mara International Journals (Nairobi, Kenya; Vancouver Canada) OPEN ACCESS
1. INTRODUCTION & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This paper sought to find out whether the principles of participatory communication were integrated into
the design and implementation of the KENSUP communication strategy at Kibera slum in Kenya. It will be
recalled that Kenya has not been spared this phenomenon as a result of rapid urbanization, and is now faced
with an increase of slums in urban areas. More than 34 per cent of Kenya’s total population lives in urban
areas and of this, more than 71 per cent is confined to slums (UN Habitat, 2009). Approximately 60 per
cent of Nairobi’s population lives in slums (Syagga, 2001). This paper argues that this number will
continue to increase unless a serious and concerted action by all relevant stakeholders is undertaken.
This paper contends that one of the main problems faced in addressing the issue of slums in the world
today is related to communication. There is also consensus that there is need to involve slum residents in
the information and communication processes implemented to address their plight (GOK, 2005; UN
Habitat; 2003a; Senteu, 2006). During the 2014 global observance of human settlements, the United
Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, echoed that need when he noted that:

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 8
Oftentimes, World Habitat Day is devoted to giving a voice to slum dwellers. People in the slums
live in near-anonymity and have no idea when their living conditions will improve. By learning
from their experiences, we can enhance the well-being of a significant portion of the human family.
Let us hear from people who live in slums what has worked and what we need to do. On this World
Habitat Day, I encourage us to give slum dwellers a voice (UN Habitat, 2014, p. 1).
This paper leans heavily on this spirit. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (1994), there is
need to vouch for the enhanced use of communication as a key tool in development and social change, as it
enables planners to consult the people in order to take into account their needs, when formulating
development programs. It is only with communication that project beneficiaries become principal actors to
make development programs successful (UNDP, 1993). The paper further considered participatory
communication in the context of the slum upgrading process currently being undertaken by the
Government of Kenya in Kibera.
In order to succinctly deal with the issue of communication in slums upgrading program, the paper used the
participatory development communication, also known as another development, which stresses the
horizontal communication between persons and groups. This approach largely emerged in Latin America
with scholars led by Paolo Freire (1993), who was among the first to observe that participatory
communication produces long term impact of reinforcing consciousness and social transformation. It sees
development as an integral, multidimensional and dialectical process, which varies from one place to the
next, in which citizens must negotiate the process and outcomes of development (Servaes, 1986; Servaes &
Jackobson, 1995; White, 2004).
The participatory development approach stresses the importance of participation at all levels - international,
national, local and individual (Servaes, 2007). The goal of communication here is “to involve and empower
people in the definition, design and implementation process of development initiatives” (Mefalopulos,
2008, p. 57 - 58).
The participatory development communication approach relative to other development communication
approaches emphasizes the development of values and cultures as well. It also gives significant attention to
interpersonal communication and the use of grassroots-based communication approaches (Richards,
Thomas & Nain, 2001). Durbhakula and Biernazki (1994) noted that from 1970s through the 2000s,
innovations in participatory practices in development have continued. Within this period, participation has
become the keyword in development practice to the extent that a project proposed without indication of the
people’s participation can rarely be funded.
2. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS: APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PARTICIPATORY
COMMUNICATION
2.1 Introductions
The researcher’s thrust was to find out how the principles of participatory communication were applied in
implementing the slum upgrading in Kibera. The principles of communication identified in the literature
review were dialogue, community engagement and empowerment. In Question B2 the respondents were
asked if their input was sought at the point when the KENSUP communication strategy was being
designed. The responses were as indicated in Fig. 1.

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 9
Fig. 1: Respondents’ Views on Government-Community Dialogue during Communication
Strategy Design
When further asked whether KENSUP officials talked with the residents when the communication strategy
document was being designed, 97% of the respondents acknowledged that they were consulted and
engaged as a community to give their input into the communication strategy at this stage of its design. The
researcher inferred that at that point of the communication design, there was participation through
consultation with the community. To complement this data, the Focus Group Discussion with the
Settlement Executive Committee members confirmed that indeed there were meetings between the
community and the government to discuss what should be put into the document.
The principles of dialogue, community engagement and participation were applied at this stage of
designing the communication strategy. The researcher inferred that there was consultative participation and
according to the typology by Mefalopulos (2009) that is the second level of the four levels of participation.
In this case, the community gave their views on how communication needs to be carried out within the
program.
However, the four respondents who said they were not consulted, represent other members of the
community who did not participate. During the in-depth interview with Stanley Kurgat, the caretaker, he
observed why not every resident may have been present in meetings when he said:
Some of the people in Kibera are not keen in meeting with government officers. Much as the
government got all the residents into meetings to discuss the communication strategy, some
individuals still find a reason not to turn up and are quick to blame the government. But they are
not many such people as the majority of residents here attend our meetings (KRS Caretaker, in-
depth interview, May 12, 2015)
When asked what the government and the community agreed would be contained in the document, the
responses were as put out in Table 1:
Table 1: List of Issues the Community and Government Agreed about Participatory Communication in the
Program (Respondents were allowed multiple responses to questions)
Responses Percentage (%)
Need for KENSUP communication strategy 96 96
Communication strategy objective to be agreed upon 93 93
Everyone’s views would be heard 87 87
Use of dialogue and community engagement 84 84

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 10
Participatory communication a tool to empower all members 78 78
Empower the community to make decisions 59 59
Community to be involved in all communication activities 46 46
Total number of respondents 100 100
The majority of the respondents, at 96% agreed that there was dialogue between the community and the
government on the need for a communication strategy. With regard to what the objective of the
communication strategy would be, 93% of the respondents indicated that this was something both parties
agreed upon, while 87% respondents indicated that it was agreed their views “will be heard”. To this point,
the process of designing that strategy was consultative/ participatory. Both the community and government
understand what the communication challenges and solutions are. Thereafter, after the meetings, the
government officers finalised on the document and presented it to the community.
In the next responses, 80% of the respondents indicated the views they had presented during the design the
consultative meetings had not been included, while 18% were contented with the final product and two
percent did not respond, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: Response on Whether or Not the Community Views were Captured in the KENSUP
Communication Strategy currently being Implemented
The study inferred that the drafters of the strategy decided on which views, from the community, to adopt
and which ones to omit. This was contrary to what the community’s expectations, because they thought all
their views would be captured in the final document. The respondents to the questionnaire gave what they
considered to be the possible reasons as to why their input was not adopted, yet they agreed with KENSUP
officials. This has been captured in the Table 2 below, where more than half of the respondents felt the
government had ignored the community’s views. This study infers that the government only collected
views about the communication strategy but what came out finally did not have their input as they had
expected.
When asked for the possible reasons as to why this happened, a total of 57% respondents gave reasons that
lay blame on the government for ignoring the community’s views. Of these 30% believed the government
put only their own views even after listening to the community’s input while another 27% believed the
government had already completed designing their strategy for the slum upgrading program when they met
the community and the meetings were a mere formality as shown in Table 2.

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 11
Table 2: Respondents Views on Why Government did not include their Views into the Final KENSUP
Communication Strategy
Responses
Percentage (%)
Government ignored community views 30 30
Community were used to rubberstamp a government strategy 27 27
Community views controversial 11 11
No agreement within the community itself 6 6
SEC not part of design team 1 1
Respondents did not answer 25 25
Total 100 100
Table 2 shows that a total of 17 respondents (11+6) gave reasons that lay the blame on the community itself
on why their proposals were not included in the finalized communication strategy. 11% of respondents felt
that perhaps the views from the community were too controversial to be implemented, 6% said the
community itself was not clear in telling the government what it wanted as there was no agreement within
the community itself in the first place. One respondent said the absence of the settlement executive
committee from the design team was crucial in having the community’s views excluded. This is an
important point, because according to GOK (2005a p.6), the SEC was the created in the KENSUP
institutional framework as the one the only organ responsible for ensuring full community participation in
decision making within the program and omitting them from the team that finalized on the KENSUP
communication strategy meant the community was not involved in the decision about what goes into the
document. A significant minority of those approached (25 respondents, or 25%) or gave answers like ‘I
don’t even know what to say about that’ and which points to apathy about the program which is not doing
well.
During the FGD with the SEC it also emerged that:
KENSUP officers added their own messages as well communication channels such as hotlines,
website, newsletter, media visits, newspapers, television, which the community had not talked
about. This could have been, because the KENSUP officials had personal interests such as financial
benefit from developing some of the communication channels they had chosen, such as the
consultancy for designing the website (SEC FGD, 7
May 2015).
Commenting on the perception that the community’s views were not taken on board after consultation,
Charles Sikuku, the Director of the Slum Upgrading Department pointed out that:
Some of the messages that were to be disseminated to the community were pre-determined in line
with national and international policies such as the MDG Report and the KENSUP Implementation
strategy. That, therefore, meant that the community might not have understood what wider
objectives were being sought for in the implementation of slum upgrading as an MDG program. It
is not always possible to input the views of over 1000 people in a document in the manner that can
satisfy all. Also, in consultative participation, we have the leeway on what to include or omit in the
final document and to fit in into other key government documents (Director, Slum Upgrading, in-
depth interview, May 21 2015)
Up to that point, even if there was no consensus on everything talked about, at least there was dialogue
between the government and the community over the communication approach to be used in the program.
This dialogue was enhanced during the relocation exercise where 91% of questionnaires respondents said

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 12
they were involved in communication activities used as a build up to the 2009 relocation exercise, as seen
in the responses to B6 contained in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3: Engagement of community in communication activities during relocation exercise
The researcher inferred that there was a high level of community engagement when the implementation of
the communication strategy began. The data in Table 3 below indicate that the community was satisfied
that their capabilities and knowledge in communication were utilised during the planning, executing or
producing content in the communication activities:
Table 3: Participatory Communication Activities Used by the Government to Engage the Community in
the Relocation Process and in Which the Community Participated (Respondents had multiple
responses to questions)
Responses Percentage (%)
Chief’s Baraza 80 80
KENSUP awareness creation marathon 65 65
Enumeration awareness seminars
61
61
IEC materials (T
-
shirts)
53
53
Traditional songs 50 50
Road shows 38 38
Drama 34 34
Slogan Development 33 33
Documentary
29
29
Community Radio 10 10
Television 8 8
Posters 1 1
Newspaper
1
1
The SEC FGD, indeed corroborated that the planning and executing of the activities mentioned above were
a joint partnership between the government and the community. The participation in the activities indicates
a joint partnership between the government and the community. However, that participation was not 100%.
Table 4 below shows the respondents, who said they could not turn up for these communication activities,
because of reasons such as being rejected by both the community and government owing to their health
status and allegations that they were criminals. Another two said they were not around during the relocation
exercise and another two said they were deliberately left out as displayed in Table 4:

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 13
Table 4: Respondents Views on Why They were not Involved in Deciding the type of Communication
Activities Used to Create Awareness about the Relocation Exercise
Responses
Percentage (%)
Fear of rejection by fellow slum residents 3 3
I was not around when the activities were happening 2 2
Government officers did not involve all of us 2 2
I get to my house late at night/leave early 2 2
Total 9 9
The description from the caretaker further explains from Table 4 of respondents, who said they did not
participate in any of the communication activities jointly carried out by the community and government
officials. According to Stanley Kurgat, the caretaker:
The community in Kibera is a very difficult one to communicate with as they agreed in meetings
on the way forward, only for them to renege when swayed by other interests like politics, tribe or
money, and they opposed what they had initially accepted. Even when you put up a poster or letter,
a malicious person could tear it down and others coming later cannot see it. Community members
who had been profiled as HIV patients or prostitutes do not have access to information that
circulated in the informal groups and social forums, which they were not accommodated into, so
they missed out on information. Others such as criminals, brewers of illicit drinks, and drug
peddlers, who do not want to attend any social gathering for fear of their cover being blown. This
undermines effective information flow in the community (Caretaker at the KRS, in-depth
interview, May 12, 2015).
The relocation exercise took place when the communication strategy had been implemented and the
participation of the community was adequately high, with 91% of the respondents saying they participated
in agreeing and carrying out various communication activities. The three principles of participatory
communication seem to have been applied here; dialogue, community engagement and making decisions
on the various communication activities to be undertaken. Together with the KENSUP officials, they
jointly chose the activities, designed the messages and the type of communication channels to be used.
However, this changed once the community moved. According to one participant during the FGD:
After the 2013 general elections in Kenya, there were changes in the Ministry in charge of
KENSUP. Many of the officers who were in charge of several components within KENSUP left.
The new ones who came did not continue with the dialogue, community engagement and
participation, which had been initiated. They seemed to have changed their thinking about the
program. All we now see are letters sent from the headquarters. We also hear that the National
Youth Service is now also doing slum upgrading. This has affected the communication between the
government and the community, as we no longer sit down to plan communication activities
together” (SEC FGD, 7 May, 2015).
Although 91% of the respondents were involved in communication activities used as a build up to the 2009
relocation exercise, the number of respondents who felt they had been engaged in the participatory
communication activities after the relocation exercise dropped. When asked about whether they felt they
had been engaged in the participatory communication activities after the relocation, which ushered in life at
the Kibera relocation site where they currently live, 85% of the respondents said yes while 11% of the
respondents felt they had not been engaged. 4% were non-responsive as seen in Fig. 4:

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 14
Fig. 4: Responses on Whether the Community felt they had been engaged in the Participatory
Communication Activities by the time the relocation exercise ended
When the respondents were further asked whether the KENSUP officials involved them in any ongoing
participatory communication activities, 82% of respondents indicated they had been to seminars, 18%
caretaker’s meetings and 3% cited the SEC meetings (3%) as indicated in Table 5:
Table 5: List of Communication Activities the Respondents Say are Being Undertaken at the Relocation
Site Where They Currently Live and are participatory
Responses Percentage (%)
Seminars 82 82
Caretaker’s meetings
18
18
SEC Meetings 3 3
Not responsive 19 19
Total number of participants 100 100
The 82% of the respondents who said they participated in the seminar were the ones who attended the
meeting described by Charles Sikuku, the Director of the Slum Upgrading Department who said:
We ferried all the residents block by block to the Bankers’ building at Upper Hill Nairobi for a
seminar. Even the SEC members came and this is part of the ongoing dialogue we are having with
the community. The success of the seminar could be, because of the stipend given to the attendees
as most of them seek daily menial jobs for a living. (Director of Slum Upgrading, in-depth
interview, May 21, 2015)
Further, according to one participant during the Focus Group Discussion “There is now controversy on the
list of beneficiaries at the now upgraded houses at Soweto East A Village. The controversy has been
brought about by claims that opinion leaders, politicians and government officials want to influence the list
of the beneficiaries. The case is even now in court.” (SEC FGD, 7 May 2015).
2.2 Discussions
The research question in this paper was: How were the principles of participatory communication applied
in design and implementation of the KENSUP communication strategy? This paper found out at the phase
where the need for a communication strategy was being discussed, there was dialogue between government
and the community as inferred from 97% of respondents who said they were consulted/engaged as a

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 15
community for their views. The respondents even go further to identify the issues that were agreed upon.
For example, it was agreed that there was need for a communication strategy (96% of the respondents), that
the objective of the communication strategy would be jointly agreed upon (93%) and that community views
regarding the communication strategy would be heard (87%). The study infers that at the point of agreeing
on the contents of the KENSUP communication strategy, the principles of participatory communication
applied were dialogue and community engagement.
At the stage when the KENSUP communication strategy had been put together and presented to them, 80%
of the respondents felt their views were omitted from the final document. The community felt their voice
was not in that document and, therefore, it negated what had been agreed upon during the consultative
meeting. This phenomenon could be what Waisbord (2008) referred to as directed participatory
communication and, which is used by governmental development projects, commercial marketing agencies
and others to help achieve the pre-established goals.
The community gave possible reasons as to why the omission of their views from the final document
happened. The reasons ranged from government ignoring their views, using community to rubberstamp
what it had already decided (30% + 27%= 57% and some respondents said there were problems within the
community itself (a total of 17% of respondents). From the typology designed by Morris (2003) in Table
2:1, it appears the government thought the communication problem facing KENSUP could be lack of
information and so the solution is information transfer. That could be the reason the views of the
community were excluded from the final document as inferred from the 80 % of respondents who said their
views were not contained in the final document. Yet it emerged from the responses to B3 that the
community understood what the communication challenges in KENSUP were and what the possible
solution also could be. The high responses to the issues agreed upon (in B3) also point to a scenario where
the community thought everyone would participate in designing the document that would guide
communication in the program. According to Morris (2003) the kind of communication challenges
KENSUP was facing were structural inequalities and ignoring of local language. That would have be
resolved using information exchange and participation.
Also, according to Mefalopulos (2009) whatever the KENSUP officers did when finalising with the
communication strategy pointed to participation by consultation. That happens when ,whereas stakeholders
will provide answers to questions posed by experts, the final decision making power lies in the hands of
external professionals who are under no obligation to incorporate stakeholders input (Mefalopulos, 2009).
During the period when the community was being relocated from Soweto village to the relocation site,
again there was a high level of participation by the community in the communication activities KENSUP
implementers were carrying out in line with the relocation exercise. 91% of the respondents said they were
involved in the communication activities used a build up to the relocation exercise in September 2009.At
this stage the principles of dialogue, community engagement and some level of empowerment took place.
For example, 80% of respondents said they attended the Chief’s barazas or open meetings, 65% said they
took part in the community marathon, 53% said they took part in producing IEC materials. Also 33% took
part in developing the slogan ‘Keja poa, Maisha poa ‘which was used in promotional materials while 29%
took part producing a documentary. Also from the FGD it emerged that this is the only time the
government and the community jointly produced and disseminated messages on KENSUP and the level of
participation going by the typology by Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) was empowerment participation.
However, that type of communication was not sustained. From the FGD, it emerged that a new team took
over at the KENSUP secretariat and the new team did not continue with the dialogue engaging the
community in Kibera when decisions are being made. 59% of the respondents, over half of the respondents,
said they were not involved in any participatory communication activities within KENSUP. Only 26% of

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 16
the respondents felt KENSUP officers still engage the community in the participatory communication
activities they are carrying out within the program.
The participatory communication activities the respondents mentioned as being undertaken currently at
Kibera; included seminars (82%), caretaker’s meetings (18%) and SEC meetings (3%). According to the
Director, KENSUP, the probable reason why seminars were popular with Kibera residents was the stipend
being paid to every participant and during the FGD; the SEC noted that even during the seminars, there was
no dialogue as KENSUP officers only passed information to the community. And they don’t make any
decision in the program.
These points to a top-down communication approach which according to Mefalopulos (2003):
Requires having an open attitude, being ready to listen and learn. It also requires a strong
commitment to work with all people, especially the poorest and most disenfranchised ones, and
accept that their empowerment will mean a loss of power for the outsiders. Only then the specific
skills in participatory communication will be significant. The skills that would assist the
community to investigate and identify their problems, needs and priorities and in formulating and
selecting appropriate strategies (p.85)
Yet this was the point in the program where dialogue and community engagement should be sought over
controversial issues like agreeing on the official list of beneficiaries of the now completed upgraded
housing units at Soweto East Village. The top-down communication approach could be fuelling the
misunderstanding, between the government officials and the community, over the plans to move back to
Soweto East Village that was to take place in December 2014 and has not taken place by the time of
writing this paper.
When asked whether their voice was heard in the program, 68% of the respondents felt it was not. From the
SEC FGD, it emerged that the only time government, the community felt there was dialogue and
community engagement was in 2009, when government got community persuaded to support the relocation
process and that the same has not been applied now to solicit support to return to the already completed
housing units in Soweto that is pending.
These responses also point to inadequate dialogue in a social program where its implementation depends on
the community’s support. Gumucio-Dagron (as cited in Servaes, 2008) argued that if there is one thing we
can learn from participatory communication experiences, it is the fact that dialogue is the key to
development. Muturi and Mwangi (2009) argue that unless is dialogic, it is not participatory. So here
dialogue means participation.
Another very key finding that followed, 68% respondents who felt their decisions were not
considered/voice not heard in the program were the reasons they gave as to why they believe so. 59% of
respondents felt that government makes all decisions without involving them, 23% lay blame on their SEC,
the organ that is supposed to facilitate participatory communication while 9% lay blame on opinion leaders
within the community, who though they are involved in decision making, do not represent their interests.
19% of the respondents lay blame on the community itself. This could be attributed to what UN Habitat
(2003) indicated as the power struggles between government, slumlords, NGOs and other actors and this
could have been a factor in the loss of voice to the slum residents.
Going by 68% of residents who say their voice is not being heard, when decisions are made about
KENSUP, then this study concluded that objective of the KENSUP communication strategy, and by
extension empowerment participation, has not been realised. The objective of the KENSUP communication
strategy was to enable the participation of Kibera residents in the slum upgrading program. As pointed out

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 17
in the typology by Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) empowerment participation takes place where the primary
stakeholders are primus inter pares – i.e., they are equal partners with a significant say in decisions
concerning their lives. For this research question, the answer from the data is yes, there was dialogue and
community engagement but not empowerment/voice being heard /participation of the community living at
the Kibera relocation site on matters pertaining to KENSUP.
Scholars of both diffusion and participatory communication approach, admit that unless all the principles of
participatory are adhered to, that communication cannot generate or facilitate participation. And this has to
happen at every stage where messages are being designed, when the communication channels to be used
are being decided upon and in all communication activities. The communication strategy must make
reference to these principles. According to Rogers (1966) cited in Moemeka (1989), unless a
communication strategy includes a two way flow of messages, makes sure that rural people have access to
adequate channels, and can express themselves in freedom and unless the authorities are willing to listen to
the message, which come from the countryside and learn from them, then, the best of such strategies will
come to naught. This suggests, and as noted in the statement problem of this research, that the KENSUP
communication strategy was seemingly ineffective in facilitating the participation of the community in
Kibera in the slum upgrading program despite the fact that KENSUP implementers adopted the principles
of participatory communication both in the design and implementation of their communication strategy.
The 68% of respondents who say their voice is not heard receive support from Bessette (2004), who posits
that the local community should be involved in the process of identifying the development problem,
discussing potential solutions, and taking decisions on a concrete set of actions to implement. She adds that
it is no longer the sole responsibility of the researcher, the development practitioner, and their organizations
to bring about change.
However, there are scholars who argue that adopting the principles of participatory communication at every
phase of a project is not tenable. According to Mosse (2005), bureaucratic interests favour informational
over participatory communication, thus posing a challenge in integrating participation in development
projects. This is because participation is viewed as time consuming, together with the unpredictability that
can arise from dialogues and negotiations with the communities, which can interfere with the normal
functioning of procedures (contracts, program design, scheduling, implementation and funding).
A finding from the SEC FGD could expound on Mosse‘s (2005) argument. For example, according to the
FGD, it took two months for the community to agree on the slogan Keja Poa Maisha Poa. This was
because according to some residents, Keja connoted a shack and that was not Poa. It took a top-down
decision to get that slogan accepted, so that it could be used in the IEC materials. The community felt they
were not consulted over anything, yet decisions about them were being made, and they received
communication. They disowned some of the messages disseminated to them during the seminars. They
argued that they were told earlier the houses would be given for free. This shows that every aspect of
designing the communication strategy must be concluded and implemented after a dialogue and consensus
with the community. This is what Kasoma (1993) called the middle-of-the-road solution. He argued that for
any outside-originated project to be perceived as participatory, the experts ought to consult, in dialogue, the
people for which the project is meant. It is this consultation that makes the outsider-generated ideas become
participatory once they are accepted by the people (Kasoma, 1993).
Morris (2003) observed that although participatory communication is often defined in contrast to the more
traditional diffusion approach, the two are not necessarily polar opposites. She noted that the diffusion
approaches have evolved in a participatory direction and that participatory projects involve some elements
of information transfer.

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 18
As indicated in the literature review section, the kind of participation employed by the government of
Kenya in dealing with the community in Kibera is functional participation, where the community took part
in discussions of predetermined objectives. Whereas, their views were not all inputted, it provided input for
the KENSUP staff on how the objectives can be achieved. From the findings, it appears the community
wanted to determine the objectives even before the UN and government agreed upon them. That could
explain why they are yet to embrace and own the slum upgrading process including the communication
strategy being implemented.
However, this was not the case. As Servaes (2007) noted, traditionally, governments have focused on a top-
down hierarchical approach that focused on disseminating knowledge and based their developmental
practices on a principle of they should do what we know. To further expound on this finding, Mody (1991)
say this top-down structure of development initiative and its parallel centralised media system reflect the
national power structure. In this arrangement, the source of development initiatives is at the top, the
receivers wait at the bottom quietly socialised into the “culture of silence”. This is not the thinking within
the community. From the findings, 14% of the community would like their youth to be producers and
disseminators of the messages on slum upgrading.
This view could be supported by Servaes (1994) who argued that new forms of communication have been
emerging that include decentralised media systems and democratic communication institutions, emphasise
self-management by local communities. He noted that new concepts of media professionalism have brought
a greater knowledge, of and respect for, forms of people's communication, emphasises the recognition of
and experience with new formats of journalism and broadcasting, which are more consonant with the
cultural identity of the community, and a greater awareness of the ways democratisation of communication
is taking place.
The paper concludes by arguing that there was dialogue, community engagement, participation but not
empowerment and that was why there was no buy in of the communication strategy and ownership of the
program as a whole. Whereas Rogers’s early writings suggested a hierarchical approach to communication
for development, his later works embraced a more participatory approach. As already noted earlier, he
acknowledged that the degree of sustainability of a development project is largely a function of the buy-in
and extent of participation of local stakeholders (Galanes & Adams, 2007).
3. CONCLUSION
This paper has established that the principles of participatory communication were integrated into the
design and implementation of the KENSUP communication strategy at Kibera. It emerged that there was
dialogue, community engagement and participation although empowerment/heard voice was hoped for, but
was not attained. The dialogue, engagement and participation of the community in the program were at
different levels. On empowerment, the community felt their voice was not heard when decisions about the
program were being made. This finding points out that, yes, participation had taken place but only to the
level of consultation. The desired active participation of Kibera slum dwellers in the slum upgrading
process and ultimately self-reliance, where empowerment of the beneficiaries is achieved, as spelt out by
the Government of Kenya through the KENSUP communication has not materialized. The problem
occurred both at the design and implementation stages of the communication strategy. At the design stage
the buy-in/ownership of the document was not secured when the document was being finalized. At the
implementation, their involvement has not been in a consistent manner.
4. REFERENCES
Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development communication.
Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center.

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 19
Durbhakula, M., & Biernazki, W. E. (1994). Group and participatory communication. Communication
Research Trends, 14(4), 1-48.
FAO. (1994). The role of communication: A key to human development. Rome: FAO
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the city. New York: Continuum.
Galanes, G., & Adams, K. (2007). Effective group discussion. Theory and practice (12
th
ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
GOK. (2004). National housing policy of Kenya: Sessional paper No.3 of 2004. Nairobi: Government
Printers.
GOK. (2005a). KENSUP communication strategy.Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Jacobson, T., & Servaes, J., (1995). Theoretical approaches to participatory communication. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Kasoma, F. (1993). From ministries of information to ministries of public communication: A proposal for
communication policies in Africa. In Hilde, A. (Ed.), Media, Culture and Development. Oslo:
University of Oslo.
Ki-Moon, B. (2014). Give slum dwellers a voice. New York: UN Habitat.
Mefalopulos, P. (2003). Theory and practice of participatory communication: The case of the FAO project
(Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Communication for sustainable development: Applications and challenges.
Rethinking Communication for Development, 22(4), 247-260
Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of
communications. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
Mody, B. (1991). Designing messages for development communication: An audience participation based
approach. New Delhi: Sage Publishers.
Moemeka, A. (1996). Perspectives on development communication. In C. Okigbo. (1996), Development
communication principles. Nairobi: Africa Council for Communication Education.
Morris, N. (2003). A comparative analysis of the diffusion and participatory models in development
communication theory. London: Pluto Press.
Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto
press.
Muturi, N., & Mwangi, S. (2009). The theory and practice gap in participatory communication: A
Caribbean case study. Journal of International Communication, 15(1), 74-91.
Richards, M., Thomas, P. N., & Nain, Z. (2001). Communication and development: The foreign
connection. USA: Hampton Press Inc.
Senteu, J. (2006). KENSUP capacity building assessment report and work plan. Dana Consult
International.
Servaes, J. (2007). Communication for development and social change. New Delhi: Sage.
Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2007). Communication and sustainable development. London: Sage
Publications.
Servaes, J. (1986). Development theory and communication policy: Power to the people. European Journal
Of Communication, 1(2), 203-229.

Enhancing & disseminating Global Scholarly Publications www.mijsrp.org Mara International Journals
MIJ Social Sciences Research Publications, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2017, Pages 7 - 20 20
Servaes, J. (1994). Communication for development in a global perspective: The role of governmental and
non-governmental agencies. Accra: ACCE.
Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2007). Communication and social development. London: Sage.
Servaes, J., Jacobson, T. L., & White, S. A. (1996). Participatory communication for social change. New
Delhi: Sage Publishers.
Syagga, P. M. (2001). Integrated, multi-sectoral and sectoral urban development initiatives in Kenya. In
Taran, M. (2011), The true power of community voice: A study of participatory communication
within international development. Capstone: American Univerity.
Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington DC:
World Bank.
UNDP. (1993). Measuring development? The UNDP's human development index. Journal of International
Development, 5(2), 183-192.
UN-Habitat. (2014): Guide to monitoring target 11: Improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers.
Nairobi: UN-Habitat
UN-Habitat (2009). Global report on human settlements 2009: Planning sustainable cities. Nairobi: UN-
Habitat.
UN-Habitat. (2003a). The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements in 2003. Nairobi: UN-
Habitat.
UN-Habitat. (2008). State of the world’s cities: 2008/2009 harmonious cities. London: United Nations
Human Settlements Programme.
Waisbord, S. (2008). The institutional challenges of participatory communication in international aid.
Social Identities, 14(4), 505-522.
White, R. A. (2004). Is empowerment the answer? London: Sage Publishers.
Cite this article:
Kimeto, L., and Somba, A. (2017). Application of the Principles of Participatory Communication in the
Design and Implementation of the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP). Mara
International Journal of Social Sciences Research Publication, Vol. 1, No. 1, Pages 7 - 20