Do protocols and bureaucracy lead to progress in Kenya? Some observations, reflections, and challenges for research

Kenyans like protocols. If you want to speak to someone, you best go via the highest person in the organization who can then give authorization and help to move things along. I can live with this, although I wonder how democratic it is that I cannot choose who I wish to speak to myself and that the other person doesn’t feel free to talk to me without authorization (and perhaps some restrictions on personal ideas going against the view of the organization) from his or her boss (who is, of course, usually male).

This also makes ‘doing research’ difficult – or at least different from doing research in Europe and sometimes frustrating for researchers from Europe. When one wants to do research in Kenya, e.g. interviews with people, this first needs to be approved by the National Council for Science and Technology in order to get a permit. The next challenge is to get to speak to the people you really want to speak to. The director might decide that ‘it is better for you’ to speak with other people or assign the people that happen to be available at that moment. The third challenge is then to get people to speak freely and about the backstage of the organization rather than not going beyond presenting the organizations’ mission and vision (which can also be found walking on the walls of the buildings) or referring to documents that present the frontstage of the organization. These practices challenge ideas of ‘proper research’ that are held in Europe (and no doubt also by many in Kenya). Do you select a case study solely for the reason that you know the director and thus have access? Do you compromise who you want to speak to maintain good contacts with the boss? These issues feature in all research everywhere, but seem particularly strong in Kenya because of the way protocols are handled. I wonder whether these practices do not actually hamper research and new findings in Kenya: it is easy to stick to the partners and stakeholders one already has –so, does the emphasis on stakeholder participation everywhere in Kenya really make much sense if everyone already knows what the other will say?- and more difficult to involve others. Other, related, issues in my eyes also hamper possibilities to do ‘proper’ research (I now talk about social science research; other research faces lots of other and additional difficulties) and what is more, perhaps even the progress in Kenya that everyone (says he/she) is trying to achieve.

Kenyans seem to love meetings. They are always in meetings and/or preparing (policy) documents. Apart from the impression I have that the stakeholders involved in meetings are often the same, it seems hard to go beyond meetings and documents. Asking about practical work, initial answers keep pointing to documents that have been developed. I am not sure whether the issue is related to the above –not feeling free to talk about practices and therefore diverting the questions- or whether indeed much work ends once the meeting ends or a document has been developed and presented to the government that is supposed to take it from there. From the little experience I gathered, the latter seems to be a reasonable assumption.

Slowly I started understanding why everyone keeps stressing that developing things doesn’t make sense if the government is not on board, if it doesn’t go via policy makers and isn’t taken up in policy. Policy-makers are given a great deal of ‘power’ by the other people in the country. In my eyes, Kenyans have created a huge dependence on the government which also leads to a passive attitude. For example, if there is no (national) policy on gender, why would we, as an organization, for example try to involve more women or do something about male university professors sexually abusing female students? I am not sure whether (national) policy-makers would not allow or agree with such an initiative. Perhaps it is the case that people have gotten used to waiting until the government does something or when they do develop something, it always goes via the policy-makers. To me, this seems tricky and not good for the development of the country: it takes a long time before something becomes a (national) policy and does not encourage initiatives from ‘below’. Not only does it take a long time, it is also the case that government officials have to be paid to attend meetings, otherwise they will not. So, it is questionable who can invite the government officials (those with money) and whether government officials who only come because they are paid, have or will develop an urge to do something about what is being discussed. This seems similar in public institutions such as universities. On my visit to the University of Nairobi, some were obviously not interested in what I visited them for, but only helped me further since I came through the principal’s office. The question is whether this then really helps the purpose of the visit.

Being able to make appointments with the people who are highest up in the organization thus does not mean they are necessarily interested. It also doesn’t mean that they will be there at the time of the appointment. At Egerton University we were supposed to have a meeting at noon. At 15:30 we were finally invited in, but only to speak to someone who we had not planned to see. This had consequences: our previous preparation became rather useless and we were not well prepared for this meeting. In terms of research, this may not be considered good practice – although it can be said to be research in practice: unexpected situations and the need to be flexible and make the most of it. At the University of Nairobi I had a meeting at 9:30 and was called into the office at 11:45, since the person took the morning, despite (or due to?) our appointment, to go and pay some fees for his daughter. From here I was sent to two other people, which meant more waiting time and also that I didn’t manage to speak to the person I needed to speak to, because the morning and part of the afternoon had gone and I had another appointment in the afternoon. The ‘waiting culture’ seems normal in Kenya, at least in public institutions. However, if one person makes another person wait, the other has to cancel or reschedule all other meetings and so do the people this person had meetings with. In a way, one could say that this delays work in the whole country; the country makes very inefficient use of the time that is available to do things. Whether this way of (not) working comes from a different appreciation or valuing of time -the idea that there is plenty of time (versus lack of time)-, that one needs to accept fate and go with the flow (versus the idea of the manufacturability - 'maakbaarheid' - of society), or is just an expression of showing who is most important, I wonder whether it does not hamper international collaboration. Apart from the fact that it can be very frustrating for a Dutch person, it could well be one of the big issues that the country should resolve to be able to work more effectively towards the goals it has set itself.