Table of contents Chapter One Introduction The impact of participatory community development projects

Table of contents

Chapter One
Introduction
The impact of participatory community development projects: A case of Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
Background to the problem
Participatory Development has been embraced by Third World governments and international organizations such as the World Bank as a means to reduce poverty and empower disadvantaged communities (Taylor & Francis Group, n.d.). The participatory development paradigm has been characteristic since the 1950s. It has been argued that through active participation by the afflicted communities, development projects have a greater chance of sustainability. Participation becomes a way of ensuring equity. Often, the poorest of the poor do not get their fair share of the fruits of development. Therefore, participation must include them (Gran, 1983, p. 2). Further, we must realize that it is the democratic right of people to participate in matters affecting their future. Every adult, whether relatively poor, poor or the poorest of the poor, has a right to be part of the decision-making mechanism affecting their development (De Beer & Swanepoel, 1998, p. 20-24).
People must progress in realizing their inner potential while working to fulfill their physical needs. The huge problem of sustaining development and maintaining facilities can be solved by making the local people owners. People must have ownership of their own development. They must be the owners of their own destiny. Relief and improvement will not free people. (Swanepoel, 1978).
People participation in development initiatives fosters sustainability through community capacity building and empowerment. Empowerment in this context means giving people who are marginalized, vulnerable, and excluded from development – the ability to be self-reliant, to manage their own resources. It is believed that participation would lead to empowerment through capacity building, skills, and training (Lyons et al, 2001).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Brager, Specht, & Torczyner (1987) define participation as a means to educate citizens and to increase their competence. It is a vehicle for influencing decisions that affect the lives of citizens and an avenue for transferring political power. Participation according to Swanepoel (1978) is a process which enables people to become masters of their own destiny within the framework of their cultural and socioeconomic realities. Hence community participation is about freedom of choice, freedom of action and freedom to make mistakes and take responsibility for the consequences of their mistakes.

Development stakeholders, as well as governments, have embraced the participatory development method and this has impacted on policy and program outcomes globally e.g. Eastern and Central Europe, in Africa for instance in Kenya. The Kenyan government integrated devolution into the constitution which enhances citizen participation. Devolution aims at giving powers of self-governance to the people and enhances the participation of the people in the exercise of powers of the state and in the making of decisions affecting them. (Constitution of Kenya, 2010).

In the past, the Kenyan government came up with a development plan (1979-1983) that shifted the policy framework to the alleviation of poverty. However, the focus on poverty alleviation shed more light on the urban-rural economic inequality. To counter this the government introduced the District Focus for Rural Development (DFRD) strategy in 1983. DFRD sought to involve grassroots’ community representation in the management of development programs at the district level through the District Development Committees (DDCs). The aim of the government was to engage the people at the grassroots in determining, designing and managing development projects to ensure the people’s priorities were adequately addressed. However, the strategy turned out to be ineffective as the exercise did not represent a genuine commitment by the government in giving the grassroots people a chance for self-determination (Makokha, 1985).

Another initiative introduced by the government was the Kenya Rural Development Strategy (KRDS) developed in 1998. KRDS specifically sought to find ways to facilitate participatory rural development. It also recommended the creation of the Kenya Community Development Trust (KCTF) which commenced operations in 2002. KCFT assists local communities in implementing small projects that improve their standards of living and thereby contributing to poverty alleviation (World Bank, 2002; Manyasa, 2009).
Most recently, The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is part of the devolved fund, set up by the government of Kenya under the CDF Act 2003 to help alleviate poverty, as well as harmonize development throughout the country. The fund which was established by the Government of Kenya seeks to ensure that part of the annual government revenue (2.5 % of ordinary revenue, later increased to 7.5%) is set aside for the implementation of development projects at the grassroots level. CDF aims at ensuring increased community participation in decision making on local development needs; hence increased efficiency in service delivery as well as democratization and good governance measures (KIPPRA 2006). CDF members of the constituency identify, design, implement and manage their projects. CDF kitty also gives more weight to the rural and relatively poor constituencies in the allocation of funds by the government.

In spite of these initiatives, there is still inadequate participation in development projects. This study will examine the impact of participatory community development in development projects.
Statement of the problem
The impact of participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
This study will highlight the genesis of participatory development; types of participation; community participation; factors influencing community participation; characteristics and skills that facilitate a community participation approach and the advantages and challenges of community participation in development projects. Finally, this study will indicate methods to ensure sustainability of the said development projects.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
1.4 Objectives of the study
To determine the factors influencing participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
To establish the challenges of participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
To highlight the advantages of participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
To suggest ways in which to encourage participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward.
Research questions
What factors influence participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward?
What are the challenges of participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward?
What are the advantages of participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward?
What methods can be implemented to encourage participatory community development in development projects in Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency, Huruma Ward?
1.6 Assumptions of the study
The study assumes that there is some level of participatory community development in Nairobi County, Mathera Constituency, Huruma Ward. It also assumes that there are development projects being carried out with or without community participation.
Significance of the study
The findings of the study will be of benefit to the communities in Nairobi County, the local and national government as well as the Civil Society Organizations (CBOs) that operate in the County.
The results will be used to create an appreciation for participatory community development by local communities; thereby changing their attitudes about their own capabilities to transform their lives. The study will put forth suggestions on methods to overcome barriers to participation as well as effective strategies to carryout participation at the community level.
The expected outcome of this study will be used to emphasize to the key stakeholders the vital importance of the participatory community development approach in project development thereby bringing about project ownership by communities and thus ensuring sustainability; this will lead to improved standards of living, bringing dignity to all the people.
Scope and Limitations of the study
Due to financial and time constraints, this study will limit itself to Nairobi County. The sample size will be selected from the homesteads and business premises. This study will be conducted in a 3-month time frame. Finally, the study will be self-funded.
Theoretical framework
Over the past few decades the phrase “community participation” has gained increasing usage in academic literature, policy-making documents and international conference papers as a key element in attempts to attain sustainable development in African countries. It represents a move from the global, top-down strategies that dominated early development initiatives to more locally sensitive methodologies (Storey, 1999).
The issue of community participation is now an established principle when one considers issues dealing with decision-making to achieve sustainable development (Shackleton et al. 2002). Advocates for participation note that policy and development which adopt a bottom-up framework where local communities are actively involved in decision-making, better facilitate the achievement of target objectives.

This paradigm shift to a more people-centered approach focused on micro-level as opposed to macro-level theorizing. Korten (1990) as cited in Davids, Theron, Maphunye, & Kealeboga (2009, p. 17) indicated that people-centered development is “a process by which the members of the society increase their personal and institutional capacities to mobilize and manage resources to produce sustainable and justly distributed improvements in their quality of life consistent with their own aspirations”. Unlike in past theories of development, humans are placed at the center, contrary to the „trickle-down? approach in other development initiatives.
According to the 2000 World Development Report entitled – The role of UNDP in the 1990’s; “development has its ultimate objective the enhancement of human capacities to enable people to manage their own lives and their environment” (Srinivasan, 1990:7).

However, for the purpose of this study the similar school of thought of Holcombe, Johnson, and Walker will be the focal point.
According to Holcombe (1995), acknowledgment of the importance of participation grew out of the recognition that the worlds’ poor have actually suffered as a result of development and that everyone needs to be involved in development decisions, implementation, and benefits. As participatory approaches advanced, they highlighted the weaknesses inherent in traditional, top-down approaches that focused on single disciplines and reductionist paradigms (Johnson and Walker 2000).

This theory is underpinned by the fact that everyone (those stakeholders that will be affected by the development projects) needs to be involved in development; right from conception to implementation, and finally in enjoying the benefits equitably and equally.
It has been observed repeatedly that development projects that do not involve the community that they are supposed to be helping end up either as white elephants or the wrong needs are addressed. This results in the lives of the community members either stagnating or deteriorating. Furthermore, without community involvement there is a lack of project ownership, therefore there lacks sustainability.
Involving the community members will require empowering the people through capacity building i.e. inculcating skills and knowledge that will result in attitude and behavior change; which will lead to improved standards of living and human dignity uplifted.
There have been several studies conducted in Kenya in relation to community participation in development projects however, there has not been a study specifically conducted in Huruma Ward. That is what makes this research unique and necessary. Huruma Ward is one of the poorer wards in Nairobi County and a study like this would benefit the community and government in identifying the impact and importance of participation in project development thus bringing about positive change in the lives of all the stakeholders involved.

Conceptual framework
left1905Factors influencing participatory community development
Challenges of participatory community development
Advantages of participatory community development
Development projects
00Factors influencing participatory community development
Challenges of participatory community development
Advantages of participatory community development
Development projects

This conceptual framework outlines the independent variables that influence the dependent variable. The independent variables in this context include Factors influencing participatory community development; Challenges of participatory community development and Advantages of participatory community development. The dependent variable is the Development projects.
Operational definition of terms
Participation: Process which enables people to become masters of their own destiny within the framework of their cultural and socio-economic realities. Hence, community participation is about freedom of choice, freedom of action and freedom to make mistakes and take responsibility for the consequences of those mistakes.

Devolution: Is a statutory granting powers form the central government of a sovereign state to government at a sub-national level, such as a regional, local or state level.

Development: A process, which must be accumulative and must bring not just an improvement in physical and social conditions, but also durable gains in people’s ability to control and sustain conditions.

Rural development: An overall improvement in the welfare of rural residents and in the contribution which the rural resource base makes more generally to the welfare of the population as a whole.

Empowerment: in this context means giving people who are marginalized, vulnerable, and excluded from development – the ability to be self-reliant, to manage their own resources.

Stakeholder: a person with an interest or concern in the development process.

Sustainable development: is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own needs.

Community: represents a group of people rooted in a sense of place through which they are in a reciprocal and trusting relationship with one another and their landscape. As such, a community is not simply a static place within a static landscape, but rather a lively, self-reinforcing resonance of ever-changing, interactive, interdependent systems of relationships.

Community participation: refers to an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than merely receive a share of project benefits.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews past studies related to participatory community development as presented by various writers. Specifically it is organized by defining key terms and concepts; exploring the genesis of participatory development; explaining the types of participation; highlighting what is meant by community participation and consequently expounding on the factors influencing community participation; there is a section on the characteristics and skills that facilitate a community participation approach and finally the chapter will conclude on the advantages and challenges of community participation in development projects.
2.2 Definition of Community
The definition of community is highly problematic, and the many definitions that have been proposed have very little in common (Bell ; Newby 1971). According to Flint (2013), the term “community” represents a group of people rooted in a sense of place through which they are in a reciprocal and trusting relationship with one another and their landscape. As such, a community is not simply a static place within a static landscape, but rather a lively, self-reinforcing resonance of ever-changing, interactive, interdependent systems of relationships. As Shaeffer (1992) argues, some communities are homogeneous while others are heterogeneous; and some united while others conflictive. Bray (1996) presents three different types of communities, applied in his study on community financing of education. The first one is a geographic community, which is defined according to its members’ place of residence, such as a village or district. The second type is ethnic, racial, and religious communities, in which membership is based on ethnic, racial, or religious identification, and commonly cuts across membership based on geographic location. The third one is communities based on shared family or educational concerns, which include parents associations and similar bodies that are based on families’ shared concern for the welfare of students. As noted by Wolf et al. (1997, p.10), communities may expand or contract according to the need and situation. Also, the voices of all stakeholders may not be heard equally; and although multiple and possibly overlapping communities sometimes come together to achieve common objectives, they may have different ideas about the ways in which those objectives can best be achieved.

2.3 Definition of Participation
The term “participation” can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the context. Shaeffer (1994) clarifies different degrees or levels of participation, and provides several possible definitions of the term, including: participation in the delivery of a service, often as a partner with other actors; participation as implementers of delegated powers; and participation “in real decision making at every stage,” including identification of problems, the study of feasibility, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Community participation as an active process by which beneficiary/client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project with a view to enhancing their wellbeing in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish (Paul, 1987). According to Cohen and Uphoff (1972) in the perspective of rural development, participation implies/includes people’s involvement in the decisions making process, in implementing programs, and their sharing in the benefit for development programs.
In this paper participation can use Mulwa’s (2008) simple definition – participation is nothing short of local decision-making mandate by the people and for the people, on matters that affect their lives. That is, whatever creates a sense of local ownership and local responsibility should be more desirable as this ensures relevance to the local context and not the least, sustainability.
2.4 The Genesis of Participatory Development
Participatory development paradigm is meant to correct the inadequacies encapsulated within the modernization and social welfare dispositions and practices. Participation is a concept that has been popularized in community development since the 1970s. Integrated Rural Development (IRD) approach that dominated the development scene in the mid and late 1970s was its precursor (Rondinelli, 1973). The IRD operated on the assumption that sectoral integration was imperative to check on the phenomenal dismal impact experience then with community development initiatives. It was believed that integration, as opposed to the isolated action of various departments and sectors, would lead to a symbiotic effect thus enhancing efficiency. Even though this new strategy had its own benefits, the expected ‘miracles’ were not forthcoming. It was soon realized that the sustainability of community projects continues suffering as long as development professional kept on doing everything for the people. It was identified that the top-down, directive methodological approaches employed were largely responsible for this inadequacy (Mulwa, 2008).

2.5 Types of Participation
2.5.1 ‘Extractionist’ Participation
This type of participation is reminiscent of central government development planning where ‘blueprint’ plans are drawn-up and handed down for execution through government extension networks. In this framework, planning bureaucrats see participation as a process of drawing in people into the implementation of predetermined development goals. In this case, people are seen as a resource potential that needs to be mobilized. Communities have readily available and free labor for ‘rural modernization ‘programs, which Knoetze (1983, p. 99-100) terms as “sweat equity.” In this framework, people are often treated as objects to be used by development experts (Bryant and White, 1982). People are stripped of decision-making responsibilities regarding community development planning and the concomitant project initiatives (Mulwa, 2008).
2.5.2 ‘Vertical’ Participation
It has been argued that this kind of participation manifests itself in the circumstances where community power brokers develop mutually beneficial relations with individual elites or government officials as the basis for people’s mobilization for participation (Bryant and White, 1982). These individual power brokers usually have a direct alliance with government officials or/and politicians. They benefit individually from such relationships of vertical linkage, usually, with some ‘peanuts’ reaching the people, they represent (De Beer and Swanepoel, 1998, p. 22).

2.5.3 Handout-induced Participation
Participation has also been understood in terms of the handouts receivable from a development activity. This perception has been more associated with economist and technocrats. Their argument is that since poverty is basically caused by mal-distribution of the benefits of development, it would consequently be sufficient to emphasize on ‘equitable’ distribution of growth through handouts to the people and leave the development designs to the experts. Hence, people’s participation is ensured through their ‘fair’ share in the benefits accruing from development endeavors. This often stifles people’s initiatives, as people have to wait for professional guidance and approval to make any progress. Dependence, therefore, develops and leads to paternalism (Mulwa, 2008).
2.5.4 Authentic Participation
This type of participation is the ideal model, which seeks to empower the powerless towards assuming full responsibility for their own destiny within the framework of their cultural and socio-economic realities. Poverty is believed to be a structural product whose blame could not in any way be attributed to the poor people’s behavior but to the structural forces of local and global society. Hence, it becomes everybody’s responsibility to make the world a better place and more hospitable for every single human person (Mulwa, 2008).

2.6 Community Participation
Caroline Moser stressed the importance of not confusing community participation with community development (Moser 1987, as cited by Economic Development Institute, 1986). Various other participants agreed with Moser that community development, a concept popular in the 1960s, is now considered in some countries to have colonialist overtones and has become discredited. Participants generally accepted Paul’s definition: “In the context of development, Community Participation refers to an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than merely receive a share of project benefits” (Paul 1987).

The five proposed objectives to which community participation might contribute, namely:
Sharing project costs-participants are asked to contribute money or labor (occasionally goods) during the project’s implementation or operational stages;
Increasing project efficiency-beneficiary consultation during project planning or beneficiary involvement in the management of project implementation or operation;
Increasing project effectiveness-greater beneficiary involvement to help ensure that the project achieves its objectives and that benefits go to the intended groups;
Building beneficiary capacity-either through ensuring that participants are actively involved in project planning and implementation (for example, through the formation of self-help house construction groups), or through formal or informal training and consciousness-raising activities (Rahman 1987). This is a longer-term evolutionary objective that often envisages the integration of local level organizations to form the higher-level district, or even national level, organizations (Abed 1987)
Increasing empowerment-defined as seeking to increase the control of the underprivileged sectors of society over the resources and decisions affecting their lives and their participation in the benefits produced by the society in which they live. Empowerment is often poorly defined either as a process or as a goal; and, although it is relatively simple to define for the planning and execution of a single, small-scale project its meaning and the steps to its achievement are much less clear with respect to large-scale programs (Bamberger, 1986).
2.7 Definition of Development
Maser (1997), says development must be flexible and open to community definition because the values promoted must always provide for various necessities and not contingencies as they arise. The process of valuation embodied in sustainable development must address social-environmental justice in recognizing the necessity of nondiscriminatory access to resources, including fair distribution of goods and services, while simultaneously protecting the long-term biophysical infrastructure of the system that produces them for all generations. The traditional Western model of development has not been the only one applied, alternative development approaches have been proposed by certain non-governmental aid agencies working from an explicit analysis of the oppression of so-called Third World countries (Ife, 2013). Paulo Freire (1972) is a key advocate of alternative development. The two important elements of Freire’s work are his use of consciousness-raising as a key component of development and his insistence that education and development must link the personal and the political. In this paper, development will be defined as a process, which must be accumulative and must bring not just an improvement in physical and social conditions, but also durable gains in people’s ability to control and sustain conditions.

2.8 Factors Influencing Community Participation
Equal partnership, social justice, and self-reliance are the goals of community participation (NPPHCN 1999).

Banyai (2013), said to influence community participation facilitators ought to promote active and representative participation in enabling all community members to meaningfully influence the decisions that affect their lives; engage community members in learning about and understanding community issues, and the economic, social, environmental, political, psychological, and other impacts associated with alternative courses of action and work actively to enhance the leadership capacity of community members, leaders, and groups within the community.

Other factors that would have an influence on community participation are: Capacity building of communities, professionals, and authorities in the concepts of community participation and skills required for applying community participation; Optimize successful experiences as triggers for new initiatives; Community based approaches can be made acceptable for (local) authorities by involving them in the process; Create alliances and networks for advocating a participatory community approach at different levels (national and international policy, funding agencies, research groups etc.) (Institute of Tropical Medicine, 2008).

Centralization of decision-making is the concentration of authority and decision-making at the top of an organization. It is a structural policy in which decision-making authority is concentrated at the top on the organizational hierarchy (Koontz, 1998). Decision-making is considered to be of the key importance when talking about different levels of participation. Therefore, decision-making powers need to be transferred to communities, if community members have little authority over the decision made about the allocation of resources, they may lose interest and decline or not effectively participate in the activities planned (Paul, 1984).

Making processes of projects selection, implementation and evaluation transparent is an effective way to encourage community participation as it can potentially change power relations between communities and development organizations and between interests within communities (Shashi & Kerry, 2002). Simply transferring funds to committees is not adequate to introduce community control, as communities need to be protected from the abuses of committees hastily assembled to represent them. This means when the processes regarding participation are conducted with transparency it brings about trust and increases the level of a community’s participation in development projects.

Barney (1991), identifies three categories of resources that is physical, human and organizational. Of these categories, human resources are conceived in terms of experience, knowledge, and understanding that managers bring to the context of the organization. The third category of organizational resources such as its structure and its systems for planning, coordinating and controlling as well as informal aspects such as the nature of the internal and external relations. With enough resources, development projects become successful.

2.9 Characteristics and Skills that Facilitate a Community Participation Approach
Cheetham (2002) said those promoting community participation need to be able to facilitate a process, rather than to direct it. Facilitators need to have genuine confidence in a community’s members and in their knowledge and resources. A facilitator should be willing to seek out local expertise and build on it while bolstering knowledge and skills as needed. Therefore, she put forth the following characteristics and skills that she noted as important in facilitating community participation:
Commitment to community-derived solutions to community-based problems
Political, cultural, and gender sensitivity
Ability to apply learning and behavior change principles and theories
Ability to assess, support, and build capacities in the community
Confidence in the community’s expertise
Technical knowledge of the issue(s) the project will address
Ability to communicate well, especially by actively listening
Ability to facilitate group meetings
Programmatic and managerial strengths
Organizational development expertise
Ability to advocate for and defend community-based solutions and approaches.

2.10 Advantages of Participation in Project Development
Participation has an intrinsic value for participants: it frees people from dependence on others’ skills and makes people more conscious of the causes of their poverty and what they can do about it (White, 1981).

Increases project acceptability: because it guarantees that felt needs are addressed and also uses valuable indigenous knowledge to solve the community’s problems. Communities that have a say in the development of policies for their locality are much more likely to be enthusiastic about their implementation’ (Curry, 1993 p. 33 as cited in Storey, 1999, p. 308).
Produces a more equitable distribution of benefits: With participation, more will be accomplished, and services can be provided more cheaply (White, 1981).

Helps ensure project sustainability: The local control over the amount, quality, and benefits of development activities help make the process self-sustaining (Botchway, 2001, p. 136).
Effectiveness: Participation will also make projects more effective as instruments of development projects are invariably external mechanisms which are supposed to benefit the people of the particular area. Participation which allows these people to have a voice in determining objectives, to support project administration and to make their local knowledge, skills, and resources available must result in more effective projects. A major reason why many projects have not been effective objectives in the past is that local people were not involved. Effectiveness equals the successful realization of objectives and participation can hold to ensure this (Crook and Manor, 1998).

Accountability: Golooba-Mutebi (2004, p. 12) found that participation has a role in enhancing civic consciousness and political maturity that makes those in office accountable.

2.11 Challenges of Community Participation in Development Projects
The following are the reasons hindering local people from being involved in development projects.

A lack of capacity amongst the underprivileged in terms of access to education and mediums of communication: Whilst public participation is viewed as a form of empowerment, it often benefits those who are better equipped to harness its potential (De Villiers, 2001. p. 13). CSIR (2002, p. 54) states that communities have first to be fully educated about newly planned developments and changes in government policy with sufficient and in-depth information. Only when fully equipped with information and an understanding of said information, can public participation be of true value.

Political and administrative barriers delay community-based projects: when project objectives and outcomes do not sit well with authorities, leaving the needs of the community as secondary. He also argues that the public/private partnerships promoted by the government can often reduce the level of participation by communities by transferring large stakes in projects to nongovernmental organizations (Lizarralde, 2008, p. 11).

Participatory approaches may also be riskier than bureaucratic management: there is a danger of the co-option of the project by certain groups, the creation of conflicts, or losses of efficiency due to inexperience with the participatory approaches. According to Senyal (2008, P. 227), a preoccupation with community participation and a bottom-up approach could imply a disregard for planning at the top which remains a critical institutional mechanism for initiating change. The risks associated with community participation can be largely associated with poorly planned, structured and managed participatory initiatives. Where incompetent planners are at the helm conflict intermediation may lack effectiveness, credibility may be lost, discussions may lack focus and projects may be susceptible to be commandeered by political parties for their own gain (Imparato & Ruster, 2003, P. 16).

Participation processes can also be costly to undertake and depend heavily on political will, time investments and resources: Given the extensive demands on governmental resources and the strained nature of delivery, the justification of a commitment to participatory programs, is often an issue. Many argue that money could be better spent on more pressing needs such as physical housing and service delivery (De Villiers, 2001:73).

Lack of dissemination of project related information: Projects are undertaken for the development of local people. So projects should be selected, designed and implemented in consultation and with the help of local people. The project beneficiaries have the right to be aware of the project related information but information about development project to beneficiaries is almost absent at the grassroots level which causes hindrance to local people’s participation in development initiatives (Oakley, 1995).

The participatory approach to development is now a widely accepted principle; however, there are numerous methods put forth when it comes to methods of implementation. Conventionally, the participatory approach is considered as the reaction to the shortcomings of top-down development practices, externally imposed and expert-oriented (Chambers R. 1983). The advantage of these new approaches is that they are centered on the role of the local community as a primary actor that should be allowed (and enabled) to influence and share the responsibility (and possibly the costs) of the development process affecting their lives.
As U. Kothari underlines, “participatory approaches to development, then, are justified in terms of sustainability, relevance and empowerment” (Kothari U. et al, 2001).
The purpose of this research, therefore, is not only to highlight the impact of community participation in development projects in Nairobi County but to understand the factors that hinder this approach from being realized fully considering all of its established benefits.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the methods and techniques that will be used to conduct the research will be explained in detail. In particular, these are the areas that will be elaborated upon: description of the research design, target population and sampling procedures, research instruments, data collection procedures and data analysis.
3.1 Research design
This research will use the qualitative approach and thus adopt a case study as a design.
According to Green and Tull (1966), “A research design is the specification of methods and procedures for acquiring the information needed. It is the over-all operational pattern or framework of the project that stipulates what information is to be collected from which source by what procedures. The research design is also defined by Kothari (2007) as the detailed blueprint used to guide a research study towards its objectives. Researcher Robert K. Yin defines the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1984, p. 23).
The reason for choosing the case study is that the data collected will be holistic and in-depth; the research will go beyond the quantitative statistical results and understand the behavioral conditions from the actor’s perspective. By including both quantitative and qualitative data, the case study will help explain both the process and outcome of the phenomenon through complete observation, reconstruction, and analysis of the topic under investigation (Tellis, 1997).

This design will be used due to its flexibility in terms of data collection and analysis, also because it will allow a lot of detail to be collected that would not normally be easily obtained by other research designs. Finally, the data that will be collected will be a lot richer and of greater depth than can be found through other experimental designs.

The researcher also used available secondary data to help fill in the gaps that could not have been addressed by the primary data.

3.2 Target population
Nairobi County, Mathare Constituency is the area of study. Mathare Constituency with a population of approximately 193, 416, was created out of Starehe Constituency. It measures three square kilometers and is made up of six wards (Hospital, Mabatini, Huruma, Ngei, Mlango Kubwa and Kiamaiko. More specifically, the research will be carried out in Huruma Ward which covers an area of 0.35 square kilometers and has a population of approximately 36,247
The primary respondents will include community members, community leaders and government representatives such as the Ward leaders and councilors.
3.2.1 Sampling procedures
A sample size is the sub-population to be studied in order to make an inference to a reference population (a broader population to which the findings from a study are to be generalized).
Sampling means selecting a small or a particular group of people (sample) to represent the entire population. (Easton & McColl. 2007).
The sample size in Huruma Ward will be selected through Non-probability- purposive sampling. This is a sampling technique where the samples are gathered in a process that does not give all the individuals in the population equal chances of being selected but is based on the subjective judgment of the researcher.
Parahoo (1997, p. 232) describes purposive sampling as “a method of sampling where the researcher deliberately chooses who to include in the study based on their ability to provide the necessary data”.

The reasons for this sampling technique is because as compared to other techniques it is less rigid, it has a lower cost, it is time-saving and it is a more practical method given the scope and makeup of the population.

Huruma Ward is a preferred target because its population is homogeneous in nature; in addition, it is easily accessible in regards to logistics.
3.3 Research Instruments
According to Parahoo (1997, p. 52 & 325), a research instrument is “a tool used to collect data. An instrument is a tool designed to measure knowledge attitude and skills.”
In this research, the tools that will be used are interviews and observation.
3.3.1 Interviews
Kvale (1996, p. 14) regarded interviews as “… an interchange of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual interest, sees the centrality of human interaction for knowledge production, emphasizes the social situatedness of research data.”
The interview is particularly useful in this situation since there is an assumption that some if not most of the respondents are semiliterate.
In developing the interview guide, the researcher will use the six suggested steps by the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int):
Identify appropriate topics and questions
Decide on the level of detail
Draft the questions
Order the questions
List any probes or prompts and
Pilot the questions. Have the informant identify the problems during the pilot.

Interviews are flexible and allow the respondent to express themselves freely, although using a structured interview technique the researcher can be able to control the research process (Msabila, 2013).
3.3.2 Observation
Observation is a way of collecting data through observing. The observation data collection method is classified as a participatory study because the researcher has to immerse herself in the setting where her respondents are while taking notes and/or recording (Dudovskiy, 2018).

The reasons for selecting this tool are: it is inexpensive (in terms of the resources needed to apply it – a pen and writing pad would do); it allows for researcher-respondent bonding thereby making the participant likely to reveal a lot more information thus leading to new insights and generation of new ideas and finally it will help the researcher to see through the eyes of the research target group, i.e. see the same perspectives as group members.

The manner in which this tool will be developed and/or deployed is by first visiting the area of study beforehand and conducting a reconnaissance study; second, the researcher needs to create rapport with the research participants under study. As Howell (1972) once said – it is important to become friends or at least be accepted in the community, in order to obtain quality data. Finally, the research will prepare to record the data. Researchers are encouraged to record their personal thoughts and feelings about the subject study. They are prompted to think about how their experiences, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and other factors might influence the research (Ambert el al. 1995).
3.4 Data Collection Procedures
This is the means through which the data for the study will be collected. As mentioned earlier interviews and observation will be the tools used for data collection.
In regards to the interviews, the researcher will use an interview guide to ask the respondents questions. The researcher will record the answer via a cellphone audio recorder application; in addition, the researcher will have a notebook and pen to take minimal (if any) notes – so as to be able to maintain eye contact with the respondents and also to put them at ease by creating a less formal atmosphere.
In regards to observation, the researcher will use the camera from their cellphone to capture images, action, behavior, and activities of the respondents. The researcher will also use pen and pen to write down what is observed.
3.5 Data Analysis
Data analysis means to organize, provide structure and elicit meaning. Analysis of qualitative data is an active and interactive process (Polit et al 2001:383). After the data has been collected the researcher will use both thematic and narrative analysis. Thematic analysis is about organizing data according to recurrent themes found in interviews while narrative analysis is about categorizing information gathered through interviews, finding common themes and constructing a coherent story from data.
To make sense of the data collected, Parahoo (1997, p. 355) states the following steps are necessary:
Responses during the interviews should be transcribed verbatim and read in order to get used to them.

Significant statements that pertain to the experience under investigation are to be extracted.

Statements are used to formulate meanings.

Statements are then organized into clusters/themes.

Themes are used to provide a full description of the experience.

The researcher then returns the description to the original source for confirmation of validity.

During the data analysis process, the researcher will ascertain the reliability of the data by crosschecking the information obtained from secondary sources of data. This will give more credibility to the findings. After the data has been analyzed the results will be presented in a prose format with accompanying charts; graphs and tables to further explain the findings. The participants will be consulted to ensure or confirm the credibility of the description.

References
Banyai, C. (2013). 4 ways to promote community participation and engagement. Retrieved from https://www.comm-dev.org/blog/entry/4-ways-to-promote-community-participation-and-engagement
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99 – 120.

Bell, C. & Newby, H. (1972). Community studies: An introduction to the sociology of the local community. California, USA: Allen and Unwin.
Botchway, K. (2001). Paradox of empowerment: Reflections on a case study from Northern Ghana. World Development 29, 135-153.

Botchway, K. (2001). Paradox of empowerment: Reflections on a case study from Northern Ghana. World Development, 29(1), 135-153. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00084-X
Brager, G. & Torczyner, J. L. (1987). Community Organizing. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.
Bray, M. (1996). Decentralization of education community financing. Washington, USA: World Bank.

Bryant, C. & White, L. (1982). Managing Development in the Third World. Colorado, USA: West view.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London, England: IT publications.
Cheetham, N. (2002). Community participation: What is it? Transitions: Community participation 14(3). Retrieved from http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/683-community-participation-what-is-it#5
Constitution of Kenya. (2010). Nairobi, Kenya: National Council for Law Reporting.

De Beer, F.C. & Swanepoel, H. (1998). Community development and beyond: Issues, structured and procedures. Pretoria, South Africa: J.L. Van Schaik.

Dudovskiy, J. (2018). Research methodology: Observation. Retrieved from https://research-methodology.net/research-methods/qualitative-research/observation/
Easton, V. J. & McColl, J.H. (2007) Statistics Glossary: Sampling Retrieved from: http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/sampling.html.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, USA: Penguin Books.

Gibson, C.C. & Koontz, T. (1998). When “community” is not enough: Institutions and values in community-based forest management in Southern Indiana. Human Ecology, 26(621). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018701525978
Golooba-Mutebi, F. (2004). Reassessing popular participation in Uganda: Public administration and development in press. Kampala, Uganda.

Green, P. E. & Tull, D. S. (1966). Research for marketing decisions. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.

Ife, J. (2013). Community development in an uncertain world. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Imparato, I. & Ruster, F. (2003). Slum upgrading and participation: Lessons from Latin America. Washington DC, USA: World Bank. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5370-5
Institute of Tropical Medicine. (n.d.). New ways to promote community participation. Retrieved from https://www.itg.be/colloq2008/files/PPday2/Day%202%20aft%20feedback%20theme%201%20Community%20participation.pdf
Kothari, U. & Cooke, B. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London, England: Zed books.
Kvale, D. (1996). Interviews. London, England: SAGE Publications.

Lizarralde, G. (2008). Unexpected negative outcomes of community participation in low-cost housing projects in South Africa. Habitat International, 32(1), 1-14. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.06.003
Moser, C.O.N. (1987). Approaches to community participation in urban development programs in third world countries: Readings in community participation. Washington, D.C, USA: EDI, The World Bank.

Mulwa. F.W. (2008). Demystifying participatory community development: Beginning from the people ending at the people. Eldoret, Kenya: Zapf Chancery.

National Progressive Primary Health Care Network. (1999). Retrieved from http:/www.health link:org.za/pphc/idasal.htm
Oakley, P. (1995). People’s participation in development projects. A critical review of current theory and practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: INTRAC.

Parahoo K. (1997). Nursing research: Principles, process and issues. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects: The World Bank experience. Washington, D.C., USA: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/850911468766244486/pdf/multi-page.pdf
Polit, D., Hungler, B. & Beck, C. (2001). Essentials of nursing research. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Rondinelli, A.D. (1990). Locational planning and regional economic development: Appropriate methods in developing countries. International Regional Science Review, 13(3), 241 – 248. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769001300302
Shaeffer, S. (1994). Participation for education change: A synthesis of experience. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Uphoff, N. & Warren, F. I. (1972). The political economy of development. Berkeley, USA: University of California Press.

Walker, D. & Lambert, L. (1995). Learning and leading theory: A century in the making. New York, USA: Teachers College Press.

White, A. (1981). Community participation in water and sanitation: Concepts, strategies and methods. The Hague, Netherlands: IRC.

World Bank. (1995).World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington D.C., USA: Environment Department Papers Participation Series.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. California, USA: Sage.