Kenyan legislation defines community broadcasting services as those that “deal specifically with community issues which are not normally dealt with by other broadcasting services covering the same area”12, implying that these media occupy the ‘space between’ (Hallett 2009) commercial and public service broadcasters. In view of this expectation, I assess if Kenyan community media operate in a unique way that is characterised by alternative organisational structures, content and content production processes. I examine Kenyan community radio on two levels; the micro level and the macro level. I view Kenyan community radio as a small scale media institution impacted at the micro level by the community in which it is located, yet at the same time operating in the context of a larger economic, social and political system at the macro level. Addressing these two broad levels of analysis aims to provide a more complete picture of the functioning of community radio in the Kenyan context, given that “power is located at different levels, in ownership structures, hierarchies and political alliances of media corporations, as well as in access and reception” (Biltereyst and Meers 2014, 430).
12 Section 13(1)(b) of the Kenya Information and Communications (Broadcasting) Regulations of 2009
For the micro level, I draw on concepts from alternative media and communication for development. In alternative media, producers engage in ‘native reporting’ (Atton 2001, 112), where the journalist is not apart from or above those being reported on. Rather, the native reporter is at the centre of things as a participant. In the Kenyan context, the community plays three overlapping roles: providing the individuals who work in the radio stations, providing the audience that listens to the radio programs, and being the social context in which the radio stations operate. I therefore examine the engagement of various individuals and groups in the community radio stations as producers, managers and audience members keeping in mind the concept of native reporting. Native reporting is about the power of representation, and gaining power through self-representation (Atton, 2001, 115).
The concept of voice expands this idea further. Couldry conceptualises voice as being both process and value. Voice as process is “the process of giving an account of one’s life and its conditions” (Couldry 2010, 45), that is, the process of making narrative about one’s life and the world in which they live. For voice to play this role, it has four characteristics. One, it is socially grounded, that is, it is more than individual expression; it consists of expression made possible through shared material and social resources. The possibility to engage in media production and distribution is a key part of the “materiality of voice, the ‘matter’ without which voice is impossible” (Couldry 2010, 45). Secondly, voice is a form of reflexive agency, in that it is a way of self-expression that involves agency and reflection on the kind and adequacy of narratives about oneself. Thirdly, voice is an embodied process, meaning it is a result of lived experience, and emanates from a distinctive subject position. It is never a single story but rather, each voice is characterised by internal diversity. Fourthly, voice requires a material form which may be individual, collective or distributed. It does not only require social resources such as language, but a material form such as specific programmes or channels.
When people lack control over their means of expression then their voice can be muted. Hence the importance of media which are open to the participation of ‘ordinary’ people. Voice as value refers to the practice of treating voice as important, and deliberately ensuring that no voice is devalued, regardless of one’s views on democracy and justice. Thus, voice as value involves taking “account of people’s capacities for voice (that is, to participate in voice as a process)” (Couldry 2010, 45).
Couldry specifically points out neoliberalism, colonialism and postcolonial continuations of power as some of the social and political organisations that limit voice. He couples narrative
and storytelling with ‘the social process of listening’ (Couldry 2010, 50), arguing that for voice to matter, it must be met with listening and dialogue with the different identities of others, and that “community media literally become the collective processes for the production, sustaining and enacting of collective voice, so transforming our sense of the values at stake in media production” (Couldry 2010, 51). I utilise the concept of voice to explore the discursive space created in and through community media, and to analyse the ways in which it is employed. In using this concept I seek to engage with the values apparent through media production processes and content in community radio. Since ordinary people are envisioned as the ones taking part in community media, I make use of the concept of participation as an analytical tool.
Communication for development emphasises the importance of participation in giving communities voice. Participation is also one of the requirements outlined in Kenyan legislation for community broadcasters. However, participation is not a fixed term, and has been called a
‘floating signifier’ (Carpentier 2012). Carpentier (2014) suggests two ways of viewing participation when it comes to media. One is participation in the media, that is, non-professionals taking part in content generation (content-related participation), or in decision-making about the running of a media institution (structural participation). It is envisioned that when people are active in this sphere that is so relevant to daily life, they exercise their right to communicate, and they learn and adopt a democratic or civic attitude. Ideally, the adoption of a participatory attitude at the micro level leads to a participatory, democratic society at the macro level. The second aspect is participation through the media. This refers to the opportunity to engage in public debate and represent oneself in public. It creates the opportunity for citizens to engage in dialogue, debate and deliberation, which are vital elements for participation in public spheres. Thus, media participation is tied to the enhancement of a participatory culture, which strengthens democracy.
Carpentier (2012) however argues that not all engagement with the media should be labelled as participation. He suggests that it is more accurate to categorise such engagement into either access, interaction or participation. He defines the three aspects as follows: access is presence, including presence to technology or media content and presence within media organisations in terms of providing feedback or having one’s content published. Interaction is the establishment of socio-communicative relationships, which can include audience interactions with each other, interactions between audiences and content, and interaction between audiences and media
organisations. Participation is the degree to which there are equal power relations in decision-making processes. Participation ranges from minimalist (major power imbalances in the relationships) to maximalist (egalitarian relationships), borrowing from Pateman’s (1971) concept of full participation (Carpentier 2012). I use these delineations of participation as a lens through which to trace the involvement of community members in the stations. I explore the engagement between the communities and the stations through evaluating community members’ access to the station, interaction with the station, and involvement in content and management decisions. However, while Carpentier here limits participation to being equality of power relations, I use the term in a broader way to refer to the engagement between the communities and the stations in different aspects.
To complement the foregoing, I conceptualise the communities served by community radio stations as audiences, publics and participants. To capture community media audiences’ active, interactive and creative practices, I borrow from Livingstone’s proposal that audiences engage with media content from different but interconnected spheres, as summarised by Biltereyst and Meers (2014) below. These authors recommend that critical audience study look at audiences through considering the intersections of these spaces:
i. In relation to the state, as citizens, public, object of media education ii. In the public sphere, as active, engaged, informed and possibly resistant
iii. In the personal/intimate sphere, as selective, interpretative, pleasure-seeking and creative in doing identity work
iv. In the economy, as commodity or market, characterised through ratings, market shares, and consumerism (Biltereyst and Meers 2014, 423)
These four spaces form the basis of the analysis of the community audience engagements with the stations and their content and may be viewed as an extension of Carpentier’s above proposed ‘interaction’ aspect of engagement with media. In interaction, audiences establish socio-communicative relationships with each other, with media content and with media organisations. However, these relationships are neither homogenous nor mutually exclusive.
Rather, at different moments, audiences may act as citizens, as members of the public sphere, as a commodity or market, or as private individuals. I therefore trace communities’ public and private engagement with community radio and community radio content in view of their placement in these four spheres. Delving into the communities’ ‘media-related practices’(Willems and Mano 2016), not only allows for an ethnographic approach to media use, but also includes the possibility for a connection to larger structures and processes, through
“a fuller appreciation of…..how media texts, processes of production, and reception link up with local concerns and priorities” (Willems, 2014, p. 15).
To address the macro level and production practices, I examine the legal framework, the actors, and the discourses which form the bounds for the existence and operations of community radio stations, and the resulting content production practices. For this section, I make use of Shoemaker and Reese’s (1996) hierarchy of influences model. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) put forward the idea that news content is the result of various forces, which can be viewed as a hierarchy of influences. Although they focus on news content, I make use of the model to explore media content in general, not restricted to news. They argue that the content carried by a media organisation is not the result of any one single factor, but rather, is impacted by individual and institutional factors. To delve into this, they propose a hierarchy of influences model, divided into five tiers. The first tier is the individual level, which refers to a news worker’s psychological characteristics and background such as training, while the second tier is the routines level, which looks at work practices within a media organisation. Third is the organisational level, which explores the work structures in a media organisation and how control is exerted along them, and fourth is the extra-media level which focuses on the impact of other institutions outside of the media institution, such as advertisers. Last is the ideological level, which tackles how the system of meanings in a society are created and their impact on the media’s symbolic content. These interrelated levels are useful in understanding how community media producers conduct their day to day work, the constraints they work within, and the factors that come together to result in the production of specific community radio content and not others. Making use of this approach provides the possibility to evaluate both intra- and extra- organisational factors that impact on how Kenya community radio stations carry out their work.
Thus, my research design delves into players, participation, content, and production processes as key factors at work in the functioning of community radio in Kenya.