USE OF FACEBOOK BY CANDIDATES IN THE 2018 MOI UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

ORGANIZATION (MUSO) ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

BY

ELIZABETH N. WEKESA

MS/1009/14

A RESEACH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF

SCIENCE IN MEDIA SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLISHING AND MEDIA STUDIES

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES

MOI UNIVERSITY

JULY, 2019

i
 DECLARATION
This research is my original work and has not been presented for the award of any certificate or
diploma or degree in any other institution to the best of my knowledge.

Signature …………………………

Date ………………………………

Student: Elizabeth N. Wekesa

Adm. No.: MS/1009/14

This project has been submitted with the approval of my supervisor.

Signature………………………….

Date ……………………………

Supervisor: Mr. Ibrahim Okinda

ii
 DEDICATION
This paper is dedicated to my family which encouraged and supported me to pursue higher
education. The financial support I received from my uncle Hon. David Wafula Wekesa will
always remain invaluable. This work is fully dedicated to my son, Prince Evan; the reason for
my working hard.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this study is a product of help and support from many people. I thank the
Almighty God for the strength and mercies that He granted me throughout the time I was doing
this research. I am highly indebted to all those respondents who provided me with information
and data about the study. I would like to thank my supervisor, Mr. Ibrahim Okinda, for his kind
help, support and comments which he contributed to the final version of this paper. I would also
like to thank Dr. Wilson Kipchichir, assistant dean of students Moi University, for his assistance
in getting the required lists of the cleared candidates to vie for the 2018 MUSO election. Finally,
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my lovely family for their encouragement,
support and patience while compiling this paper. My son, Prince Evan for the many times I left
him to do this paper and Purity Ngure who always looked after him.

iv
 ABSTRACT
Facebook use has dominated in election campaigns. Facebook has ability for a quick and rapid
response and it connects a diverse mass, target voter. This paper aimed at finding out how
facebook was used by the candidates in 2018 Moi University Students Organization (MUSO)
election campaigns. The general objective of this study was to examine the use of facebook by
candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns. The four specific objectives were: i) To
assess the suitability of Facebook as an election campaign tool for candidates in the 2018 MUSO
election campaigns. ii) To find out the Facebook users targeted by the candidates in the 2018
MUSO election campaigns. iii) To find out the level of use of Facebook by students vying for
posts in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns. iv) To find out the uses of Facebook by candidates
in various forms of campaign activities in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns. The area of this
study was Moi University Main Campus, Eldoret. The target population of this research was 40
candidates who vied for the 31st Student Governing Council (SGC) in Moi University. The
theories used were Jurgen Herbamas’s Public Sphere and Clay Shirky’s Power of social media
Theory. A census was done due to the small number of the population. This research project used
mixed approach method. This method incorporates both qualitative and quantitative research
methods. Data was collected using semi structured questionnaires followed by interviews to
complement the questionnaires survey. Data collected was analyzed qualitatively and
quantitatively by description and statistics in tables, charts and graphs respectively. The outcome
of the study generated information that was relevant to various institution and other stakeholders
in using facebook in election campaigns.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ ix
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.0Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 History of Facebook ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Moi University Students Organization (MUSO) ...................................................................... 2
1.1.3 The 2018 MUSO Elections and Campaigns ............................................................................. 3
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................................. 5
1.3.1 Specific Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 5
1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Significance of the Research .......................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Research ............................................................................................ 5
1.6.1 Scope of the Research ............................................................................................................. 5
1.6.2 Limitations of the Research ..................................................................................................... 6
1.7 Operational Definition ................................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 7
2.0Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Use of Facebook in Election Campaigns ........................................................................................ 7
2.2Suitability of Facebook use in Election Campaigns ......................................................................... 8
2.3 Facebook users targeted by political candidates in election campaigns............................................ 9
2.4 Level of Facebook Use in Election Campaign ................................................................................ 9
2.5 Research Gap................................................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 10

vi
 3.0Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1Research Design ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Area of Study............................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Population ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Target Population .................................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Data Collection Methods.............................................................................................................. 11
3.4.1 Data Collection Instruments .................................................................................................. 11
3.4.2 Pre-testing the Instruments .................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.6 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION .......................................................... 12
4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Response Rate ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.2 Gender Distribution. .................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Age Distribution .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.4 RQ1: Why did the candidates use facebook in 2018 MUSO election campaign? ........................... 14
4.5 RQ2. What were the candidates using facebook for in the 2018 MUSO election campaign? ......... 14
4.5.1 Uses of facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign ........................................................ 14
4.5.2Nature of messages sent on facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaign ..... 15
4.6 RQ3. To what level did the candidates use facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign? ........ 17
4.6.1 Frequency of using facebook ................................................................................................. 17
4.6.2 Facebook account management ............................................................................................. 17
4.6.3 How candidates reached their target ...................................................................................... 18
4.7 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 19
5.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19
5.2 Summary of the findings .............................................................................................................. 20
5.3Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 20
5.4 Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 20
5.5 Suggestions for further researches ................................................................................................ 21
REFERRENCES ................................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................................................ 23

vii
 QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX II ....................................................................................................................................... 27
MUSO CANDIDATES’ PROFILE.................................................................................................... 27

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: table showing the reasons for using facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO
election campaigns……………………………………………………………………………….21

viii
Table 4.2: table showing the uses of facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election
campaign by candidates……………………………………………………………………...…..22

Table 4.3: table showing the nature of messages sent by candidates on facebook in the 2018
MUSO election campaign………………………………………………………………………23

Table 4.4: table showing the frequency of using facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO
election campaign…………….…………………………………………………………………25

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 4.1: gender distribution of candidates who used facebook in election campaigns…………..20

ix
Fig 4.2: percent of candidates and their primary use of facebook in the 2018 MUSO election
campaign………………………………………………………………………………………...22

Fig 4.3: % of candidates and the nature of messages sent on facebook in the 2018 MUSO
election campaign……………………………………………………………………………….24

Fig 4.4: candidates account management……...………………………………………..……….26

x
 ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
ICT-Information Communication Technology

SGC-Students Governing Council

MUSO-Moi University Students Organization

SNS-Social Networking Sites

MUISSA-Moi University Information Sciences Students Association

xi
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0Introduction
This chapter covers the background of facebook use in election campaigns, statement of the problem, objectives
of the study, research questions, and significance of the study, scope and limitations of the study, operational
definitions and the conclusion of this chapter.

1.1 Background of the study

Facebook is a leading social media platform that is largely used by candidates in elective politics at global level,
regional, national and even at institutional level (DotSavvy 2016).It has been used in various campaigns which
include; the 2008 Barrack Obama’s presidential election campaign which used Facebook in sourcing funds
(Balz D, 2009). Facebook has the ability for crowd sourcing and thus crowd funding this is due to its ability to
mobilize people quickly and a rapid response (Shirky,2011). The December 2007 elections in Kenya embraced
social media campaigns to reach its target online voter (Odinga,2013).Facebook provided a communicative
space where candidates interacted with voters in a networked society (Castel, 2000). The 2013 elections
engaged more of ICT, social media tools and crowd sourcing tools during campaigns (Freedom house,
2013).These microelectronics-based information and communication technologies formed the network society
(Castel,2000). Due to its ability to bring together different masses on one platform facebook is dominantly used
in election campaigns today (Shirky, 2011).

The main users of Facebook are individuals between the ages of 18-25 (socialbakers.com, 2013). Youths
engage on facebook for interactive purposes. Youths spend more time online (Pew Research, 2004). The
Barrack Obama’s election campaigns (Balz D, 2009) and the Uhuru Kenyatta’s 2013 election campaigns
(Wasswa, 2013) engaged these youths and this made their campaigns a success.

1.1.1 History of Facebook

Facebook was started in 2004 for Harvard students. It involves people sharing what is on their minds, status
update, write on friends’ timelines, send and accept friend requests, create and join groups, follow others. It has
changed everyday’s activities and connected people widely due to its interactive nature. It is an interactive site
that involves users to comment, like and share what has been posted. Users can also upload videos, audio and
photos then share.

1
More than 900 million people worldwide are members of the Facebook network (Facebook 2012). According to
Internet World Stats, Usage and Population statistics, in November 15th 2015, Kenya had 5 million active
Facebook users.

Youths have adopted the use of Facebook for its primary role of interaction and this has increased the
dominance use of it (socialbakers.com, 2013).The size of the political online audience has grown overtime due
to the increased penetration of the internet and shift in user preferences in seeking out political information
(Lusoli, 2004).The mobilization theory posits the internet with the ability to inform, engage and activate
citizens.

The interactive features of facebook increase the impact of people‘s expression when shared with many people
simultaneously (Gil de Zuniga et al., 2014).Facebook connects a diverse audience on one platform. It fosters a
rapid and quick response (Shirky, 2011). Facebook has the ability to bring together different users on the same
space to discuss political issues. Social media influences citizens to come together on one platform and share
their opinions on various political issues at interpersonal level freely (Habermas, 1962). Voters are able to give
their opinion on a given candidate democratically.

It facilitates a new way by which people are able to search and share information and increase awareness.
Audience awareness is induced by campaign topics or candidates during elections (Baranet al, 2009). It plays a
vital role in converting street movements into a non-physical outreach (Storck 2011).

Despite there being a research done on the use of facebook in the 2013 presidential election campaigns Kenya
(Wasswa, 2013) and the use Facebook by voters in the 2013 presidential election campaigns in Kenya
(Mbeetere, 2013), little research has been done on the use of facebook by candidates in election campaigns in
institutions of higher learning, thus, the need to do a research in this field.

1.1.2 Moi University Students Organization (MUSO)

MUSO is a students’ organization at Moi University a public university located in Kesses constituency in Uasin
Gishu County in Kenya. This institution was established in 1984 by the Moi University Act of the Parliament of
Kenya, after recommendations from the McKay Commission. It has a population 15,000 students, both
undergraduate and post graduate students. It has 16 satellite campuses and colleges.

2
MUSO was created to serve the student community in the pursuit of academic and social welfare, peace,
prosperity, integrity and dignity. It is political since it is a Student Governing Council (SGC) where its members
vie and are elected to govern the students’ body.

There are two types of membership; the ordinary and honorary. Ordinary membership is open to all students
admitted to the university and its campuses at an annual subscription fee which is subject to review from time to
time. Honorary membership consists of people recognized by MUSO for the outstanding contribution and
distinguished services to the industry and invited persons to join the Organization and renew their membership
after every two years.

The organizations mandate is to represent, advocate for, and enhance the interest and welfare of students and
also to provide selected services, and provide moral and academic leadership to the students of Moi University.
Secondly, it is to aspire to the highest levels of excellence, ethical standards, integrity, honesty and transparency
in all matters related to the MUSO Constitution. Finally, to accomplish this goal, MUSO must be accountable to
its constituents; the students.

1.1.3 The 2018 MUSO Elections and Campaigns

Moi University initiated a strategy where students’ excises their democratic rights through MUSO elections.
This has been done using manual system since the start of the organization. The 2018 MUSO elections took a
different approach compared to what was done in the past years. Electoral colleges were used after the
constitution was amended under the 31st Students Governing Council (SGC) secretary general, Remmy Mwalo.
The Electoral College is a controversial process by which the United States selects its president every four
years.

The MUSO elections were held in two phases where delegates were elected by bona-fide members of MUSO
on January 19 2018. There were 26 contested positions in this category. The delegates then elected the MUSO
SGC directors (candidates) on January 22, 2018. The MUSO SGC campaigns took four days, Monday January
15 to Thursday January 18. There were 7 contested positions in this category. 40 candidates were cleared by the
dean of students, Dr. J. S. Ayieko to contest; 9for the chairperson’s position with each having a running mate

3
who was automatically the vice chairperson, 6 for the secretary general, 4 for the finance secretary, 5 for the
academic secretary, 5 for the co-curriculum affairs secretary and 2 for the special needs and social affairs. There
26 male candidates and 14 female candidates.

In order to gratify their need of reaching a wide audience, candidates chose facebook as a campaign tool. These
candidates used facebook for political mobilization, marketing and communication. MUSO candidates used
mobile phones for the political interaction uses and gratifications. This is due to their nature of mobility,
constant access, and options to both add and access content.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Youths have dominantly used facebook in its primary role of interaction. They spend most of their time online
finding information, getting updates and connecting with friends (Pew Research, 2004). Due to this, political
candidates have targeted them in their election campaigns because of facebook’s ability for a wide reach of
diverse masses and a quick and rapid response (Shirky, 2011). Political candidates use facebook for political
participation, persuade, spread propaganda and set agendas (Dye, 1983), political marketing (Ndavula, 2013),
monitor opinion, organize volunteers, raise funds and research on their opposition (Howard, 2005).

Election campaigns rely more on internet penetration (Tedesco, 1998) but the limited access of internet and the
digital divide has reduced the wide reach to a diverse audience by candidates. Digital divide is an influence on a
candidate’s use of Facebook in election campaigns (Gulatti and Williams, 2010).The pattern of unequal
participation based on income (Mossberger and Stansbury, 2003) affects the effectiveness of facebook use in
election campaigns. If one doesn’t have access to internet they won’t be able to access and therefore would not
even campaign online thus, candidates find it difficult to reach their target audience due to this factor.

In order to be online and maintain electronic democratization, tech-savvy youths have to use other mediums for
political participation. Political candidates access the networked society through computers in a cybercafé at a
cost or through mobile phones. They have to subscribe to a service provider in order to purchase data bundles or
to use WiFi network if it is available.

This digital divide affects the use of Facebook in election campaigns by candidates. Candidates do not reach a
wide and diverse audience easily. It also affects the rate of response since some candidates or target voters have
to access Facebook in a cybercafé or when they are able to get data bundles or access WiFi. This study is set to
find out the use of facebook in the election campaigns despite of the backdrop.

4
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this research is to examine the use of facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO
election campaigns.

1.3.1 Specific Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of this research are:

i. To assess the suitability of Facebook as an election campaign tool for candidates in the 2018 MUSO
election campaigns.
ii. To find out the Facebook users targeted by the candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns.
iii. To find out the level of use of Facebook by students vying for posts in the 2018 MUSO election
campaigns.
iv. To find out the uses of Facebook by candidates in various forms of campaign activities in the 2018
MUSO election campaigns.

1.4 Research Questions

The study will be guided by these three research questions:

i. Why did the candidates use facebook in 2018 MUSO election campaigns?
ii. Which facebook users did the candidates target in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns?
iii. To what level was facebook used by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns?
iv. What was facebook used for by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns?

1.5 Significance of the Research

Facebook has practically reduced the street campaigns and physical interactions. Politicians have joined
facebook to enhance their campaign strategies and gain a great mass support. This study is important since it
shows how facebook can be used in election campaigns. Thus, new media practices are required in this age of
paradigm shift to focus attention on the election processes across the campuses.

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Research

1.6.1 Scope of the Research

The research was conducted in Moi University main campus in Kesses constituency, Uasin Gishu County;
which has a population of around 15000 students both post graduates and under graduates in session. The focus
was on MUSO, the students’ organization which had a population of 40 candidates vying for the 7 Student

5
 Governing Council (SGC) positions. Questionnaires and interviews were conducted and analysis done to draw
conclusion and recommendations.

1.6.2 Limitations of the Research

The research was limited to one Social Networking Site (SNS), facebook; this is because all the candidates used
it in the election campaigns unlike the other SNS that were rarely used. The research was hindered by several
challenges including: Unwillingness of interviewees to respond, harsh weather since it was a rainy season,
unavailable students’ leaders and machine breakdown. This was counteracted by consistence follow up of
students’ leaders, respondents and assuring them that the data was purely for research and being well prepared
for the weather by carrying an umbrella and dressing warmly, and having back up of the data in case of machine
break down.

1.7 Operational Definition

Terms will be defined according to the way they have been used in this research

 Election campaign-the period before election where candidates reach out to their voters
 Facebook - internet-based application that allow users to develop a public profile within a closed system, have
a list of users whom they have a relation with, and are able to view their own friends list and that of others
within the system
 Participatory Politics- interactive politics that allow the candidate and voter engage through posting,
commenting, liking, sharing and even deleting
 Candidate-those who vied for any SGC post in the 2018 MUSO elections

1.8 Conclusion
Social media has both pros and cons depending on how it is used. Used effectively it can yield efficient results.
This chapter has given an overview of how social media has been used in election campaigns and how it can
affect the whole process.

6
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0Introduction
This chapter seeks to do a review of previous work done on the use of social media in election campaign in
order to avoid duplication of other works and help researcher form a hypothesis. The review of related literature
aims at giving an elaborate picture of the course of the project development (Mwamunga 1999). This literature
seeks to put this research in the context of its discipline as explained by other scholars in the same field.

2.1 Use of Facebook in Election Campaigns

Facebook was used differently in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns. It played various roles depending on
how it was used. Generally facebook was used in political marketing, mobilizing, monitoring opinions and
interactive participation where candidates disseminated information and of course voters giving feedback. The
mass media, which includes new media, facebook included, serves four political functions that include: news
making, interpretation, socialization, persuasion and agenda setting (Dye et al, 1983).

Facebook was used very powerfully in running the 2008 United States presidential election campaign as it
connected people, spread information, and reinforced beliefs. Obama‟s campaign strategy has been succinctly
dubbed as “19th century politics using 21st century tools” (von Drehle, 2008). “The Internet served our
campaign in unprecedented ways” said President Barack Obama (Balz D, 2009). They used facebook for
sourcing funds.

7
Political elites who have already established themselves use internet technologies such as facebook to gather
intelligence on the voters, organize volunteers, raise funds and research on their opposition (Howard, 2005).

Social marketing includes methods for inducing audience awareness of campaign topics or candidates during
elections (BimberB et al, 2009). The theory gives such providers a framework for designing, carrying out, and
evaluating information campaigns. Social marketing theory recognizes the existence of the media, and affords it
a role as a conduit through which politicians communicate to the electorate (BimberBet al, 2009).

2.2Suitability of Facebook use in Election Campaigns

Facebook gives people a space to come together and air their different opinions on a given political issue. The
freedom to participate in opinion generation defines democracy. The structural transformation of the public
sphere theory addresses the power of interpersonal communication as it explains an important influence of the
social media that allows citizens to come together on one platform and share their opinions on various issues at
interpersonal level freely (Habermas 1962). However Habermas does not show how the condition of the sphere
could be affected by different opinions on various issues.

Castells’ theory of network society (Castells, 2000) implies that social media produce communicative spaces
within which interaction between politicians and voters is possible. It shows how electronically produced space
can be used for political communication in a networked society.

It facilitates a new way by which people are able to search and share information and increase awareness. It
plays a vital role in converting street movements into a non-physical outreach (Storck 2011). Social marketing
theory includes methods for inducing audience awareness of campaign topics or candidates during elections
(Bimber B et al, 2009).

Facebook encouraged Participatory Politics as interactive, peer-based acts through which individuals and
groups seek to exert both voice and influence on issues of public concern (Kahne).Examples of participatory
political acts include starting a new political group on facebook, writing and disseminating a post about a
political issue, forwarding a funny political video to one‟s social network, or participating or sharing photos.
Freedom of participation has led overlooking ethics since no one monitors what is being shared, for instance
someone could share an irrelevant post on the group or page and you will find people discussing it.

8
2.3 Facebook users targeted by political candidates in election campaigns
The main users of Facebook are individuals between the ages of 18-25 (socialbakers.com, 2013). Youths
engage on facebook for interactive purposes. Youths spend more time online (Pew Research, 2004).This
research showed that the population online was younger, more educated, most were male and wealthier than the
average population. Also, the diffusion of the internet appears to be following the diffusion pattern of other
innovations. The tech-savvy exhibits the high chances of political participation (Garamoe et al 1996). Similarly,
(Baran, 1995) and (Hacker, 1996) note that this would widen the gap between those who are economically and
educationally privileged with the underprivileged.

2.4 Level of Facebook Use in Election Campaign

Although social networking sites are increasingly being utilized in political campaigns, it has not yet been fully
established if they can directly affect election results; but there is already a trend of positive contributions from
these sites that has led to voter decision in favor of a political candidate (Conners, 2005).

A strong, viable online campaign can translate into votes, but it is not a substitute for traditional campaign
resources (Williams &Gullati, 2008). Rather, it is most effective when highly developed and then integrated
with more tried and true forms of campaign communication and mobilization and can be somewhat useful to
campaigns that have some place for it in their grassroots networking strategy. For instance, Obama‟s campaign
strategy has been succinctly dubbed as “19th century politics using 21st century tools” (von Drehle, 2008). “The
Internet served our campaign in unprecedented ways” said President Barack Obama (Balz D, 2009).

2.5 Research Gap

Facebook has been successfully used in election campaigns, for instance in the 2008 U.S elections (von Drehle,
2008) and in Kenya’s presidential election (Waswa 2013). Too much of uncensored content has been used when
using facebook for election campaign (Barber, Mattson, & Peterson 1997). Has facebook been used in
university election campaign? How has it been used? To what level has facebook been used in university
election campaigns?

9
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0Introduction
This stage involves development of techniques for obtaining and collecting the research data (Mugenda and
Mugenda, 2003). This chapter describes the research design and specific methodology that was adopted by this
study in examining the use of facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign. It includes research design,
sampling procedure and sample size, target population, research instruments, data collection procedure and data
analysis.

3.1Research Design
This refers to the research method to be used. It is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted
and it constitutes the blue print for the collection, measurement and analysis of data (Kothari, 2004). The
research design that was applied in this study is descriptive survey research. Descriptive survey research is a
method of collecting information by interviewing or administering a questionnaire to sample individuals
(Orodho, 2003).

This research used the qualitative research method since the study seeks to describe and analyze the use of
Facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns. Qualitative research includes design techniques and measures
that do not produce discrete numerical works (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). The data is in form of words and
not numeric. While quantitative research includes designs, techniques and measures that produce discrete
numerical quantifiable data. This research focused much on quantitative research design because it is suitable in
obtaining opinions, attitudes and perception of people.

The researcher used both primary and secondary sources of data. In primary sources, the researcher gathered
information directly from the respondents by use of the questionnaire and interviews. Secondary sources
involved collection of information from journals, papers and other available literature on facebook and political
campaigns.

10
3.2 Area of Study
The area of study was Moi University. This is because the study was targeting the candidates who vied in the
2018 MUSO elections. The university had candidates who are youths and use facebook.

3.3 Population
A population is a group of individuals, objects or items from which samples are taken from for measurement
(Kombo and tromp, 2006).

3.3.1 Target Population

The study population for the research is the 40 aspirants who vied for the 7 SGC positions MUSO. This study
will carry out a census since the study population is small.

3.4 Data Collection Methods

This includes the tools that will be used to collect data. The tools determine a lot about the expected outcome.
This study will use interviews and questionnaires.

3.4.1 Data Collection Instruments

3.4.1.1 Questionnaires
They can be administered in person or it can be send to the responded either by mail or even a text message or
electronically distributed. The researcher used both open and closed ended questions. Open ended questions
give respondents complete freedom of response in their own words (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Closed
ended questions will help respondents to make quick decisions to choose among the several alternatives
presented to them. Questionnaires were used to collect data from the aspirants who were not available for
interviews because of distance and time. They were sent to them and collected after being filled.

3.4.1.2 Interview
An interview is an oral administration of a questionnaire (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Interviews are
flexible since they allow room for clarity thus receiving relevant responses. The researcher conducted face to
face interviews with 7candidates. The researcher booked appointments to allow the interviewees to prepare.

The technique had some drawbacks; I was time consuming and some interviewee gave responses that do not
reflect the scenario that was depicted in the election campaign. The researcher countered this by stating that the
information gathered is for academic purposes and confidentiality of respondents will be maintained.

11
3.4.2 Pre-testing the Instruments
Pre-testing of the data collection instruments was done on the Moi University Information Sciences Students
Association (MUISSA) officials. The purpose of pre-testing the instruments is to ensure that the items are stated
clearly and have the same meaning to all participants (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Pre-testing sought to
assess whether the instruments were clear and whether they collected the required information. Information
obtained in the pre-testing was used to revise the instruments accordingly.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data collected from the field were both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative data was grouped into
different categories for analysis. The quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and percentages.
Summaries of the content analysis led to the researcher drawing conclusions and make recommendations.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Most candidates feared to share information that could cause conflicts especially mentioning those who used
Facebook wrongly. Those who gave information sought anonymity. To counter this ethically, the sources were
promised confidentiality and confirmed to them that the work was purely for academic purposes and would not
be used elsewhere.

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

4.0 Introduction
Collected data was analyzed to identify and correct errors, coded and be stored. The data was interpreted
bearing in mind the objectives and the research questions of the study. Quantitative data was analyzed using
graphs, charts and percentages. Qualitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and by categorizing it
into themes in line with the aim and objectives.

12
4.1 Response Rate
This refers to the extent to which the collected set of data includes all sample members of the targeted
population (Fowler, 2004). It is calculated by the number of questionnaires collected divided by the number of
questionnaires distributed

67.5 % of the respondents accepted to participate and responded to the questions. A total of 27 questionnaires
were distributed and 19 were returned. This represented 70.37037% response rate. A response rate of above
50% is adequate for analysis (Babbie, 2002). Therefore, 70.37037% response rate was considered as being good
for analysis.

4.2 Gender Distribution.

The male gender dominated the use of facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns with 62.96296% and
37.03704% were female. The number of male users on social media (facebook) in Kenya is more than that of
female users (Socialbakers.com, 2013). Fig 1 shows the gender distribution of the candidates who used
facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign.

gender distribution of MUSO candidates who used

facebook in the 2018 election campaign

male users
62.96296% of facebook
37.03704%
female
users of
facebook

Fig 4.1: gender distribution of candidates who used facebook in election campaigns

4.3 Age Distribution

All the respondents were aged between 18-25 years. The main users of social media are individuals between the
ages of 18-25 (socialbakers.com, 2013). This was 100% youths

13
4.4 RQ1: Why did the candidates use facebook in 2018 MUSO election campaign?
The results of the different reasons for candidates to use facebook in the MUSO elections are discussed below.

Reason for using facebook Number of male candidates Number of female

candidates
Convenience (anytime, 13 3
anywhere and on any device)
Availability of Wi-fi in the 13 6
campus
Ease of reach (connects a 13 6
wider audience)
Table 4.1: table showing the reasons for using facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election
campaigns

Three male candidates questioned the convenience of facebook saying that some voters had to access facebook
in a computer laboratory or a cybercafé thus it is not easy to access it anytime anywhere.

4.5 RQ2. What were the candidates using facebook for in the 2018 MUSO election campaign?
Facebook played a different role in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns. Each candidate prioritized a different
role of facebook.

4.5.1 Uses of facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign

Candidates used facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign differently. 9 of the candidates said that
political marketing was their primary use of facebook in election campaign, while 6 said political mobilizations,
3 was for political participation and 1 said monitoring opinion was the number one priority when using
facebook in election campaign.

Primary use of facebook Number of percent Cumulative percent

candidates
Political marketing 9 47.368421 47.368421
(manifesto selling)
Political 6 31.578947 78.947368
mobilization(asking for

14
votes)
Political participation 3 15.789474 94.736842
(discussion)
Monitoring opinion 1 5.263158 100
(traffic measuring)
Table 4.2: table showing the uses of facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaign by
candidates

% number of candidates

50
45
40
35
30
25
% number of candidates
20
15
10
5
0
political political political monitoring
marketing mobilization participation opinion

Fig 4.2: percent of candidates and their primary use of facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign

4.5.2Nature of messages sent on facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaign
The candidates posted different information on facebook as follows: all the 100% sent text messages containing
their manifestos and ask for votes every time they updated their timelines, 94.736842% posted their photos and
73.6842105% photos with caption, 21.052632% shared a video and 31.578947% shared an audio. We can
therefore infer that text and photos are the most deployed forms of messages.

15
Nature of messages sent on Number of candidates percent
facebook by candidates
Text messages 19 100
Photos 18 94.736842

Photos with caption 14 73.6842105

Video 4 21.052632
Audio 6 31.578947
Table 4.3: table showing the nature of messages sent by candidates on facebook in the 2018 MUSO election
campaign

% of candidates who sent messages on facebook

% of candidates who disseminated the information

audios 31.578947

videos 21.056232

photos with caption

73.6842105

photos
94.736842

text messages
100

Fig 4.3: % of candidates and the nature of messages sent on facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign

16
4.6 RQ3. To what level did the candidates use facebook in the 2018 MUSO election campaign?

4.6.1 Frequency of using facebook

Frequency of Number of Percent % Cumulative percent
facebook access candidates
Hourly 9 47.368421 47.368421
6 hours 5 26.315789 73.68421
12 hours 2 10.526316 84.210526
18 hours 2 10.526316 94.736842
24 hours 1 5.263158 100
Table 4.4: table showing the frequency of using facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election
campaign

4.6.2 Facebook account management

Who was managing the candidates’ facebook accounts during the 2018 MUSO election campaigns?
36.842105% of the candidates managed their accounts during the election campaign, 31.578947% were male
and 5.263158% were female, while 63.157895% had other people (admins) manage their facebook accounts,
36.842105% were male and 26.31579% were female

17
 40

35

30

25

20
% of male candidates
15 % of female candidates

10

0
candidates other people
managing their managing
own facebook candidates
accounts facebook
account

Fig 4.4: candidates account management.

4.6.3 How candidates reached their target

Candidates posted on their own accounts and other groups. 100% of the candidates shared their posts to the
public and facebook, friends’ timeline, my story, other groups and pages. They also tagged friends.

4.7 Discussion
All the candidates had an appearance on facebook and used it in the 2018 MUSO election campaign. More male
candidates used facebook in the election campaign than female candidates as shown in fig. 4.1. The candidates
used facebook to sell their manifestos, mobilize voters, interact with their voters and monitor the opinion of the
voters as depicted in table 4.2. In order to reach their voters, the candidates posted on their own timelines,
shared to facebook and the public, posted on friends’ timelines, tagged and mentioned friends, posted on other
groups and pages.

18
The nature of message that dominated on facebook was the use of text to communicate the candidates’
manifestos, ask for votes and react to comments. Photos were also used largely to enhance political marketing
as shown in table 4.3 and fig 4.4.

The results suggest that what happens online does not stay online, but rather moves offline and affects citizens’
face-to-face conversations. To the extent that this is true, the political demands that are articulated through
social media will become harder to ignore for anyone who is interested or involved in the political process,
including those who are inclined to study it.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of key findings from which conclusions were drawn and recommendations
made on how to use facebook effectively in election campaigns. This was a synopsis of what has been tackled
in previous chapters in summary.

19
5.2 Summary of the findings
The study found out how facebook was used in the 2018 MUSO election campaign. The candidates used
facebook for political mobilization, marketing, interactive participation and monitoring opinions as shown in
table 4.2.

The candidates did not create new facebook accounts for the election campaign but used their personal accounts
(some giving their ‘influencers’ passwords to access their accounts) and The Real Comrades.

The candidates’ disseminated different information on facebook like; their photos, manifestos, whatsapp links
and requested for votes as shown in table 4.3 and fig 4.3.We can therefore infer that text and photos are the
most deployed forms of messages.

In order to reach their target audiences the candidates engaged in participatory politics through posting on their
own accounts and other groups like the Real Comrades. They tagged friends and shared their posts to the public,
friends’ timeline, other groups and pages, and on my story.

Some candidates managed their own accounts while others had influencers (admins) manage their accounts as
shown in fig 4.4.

5.3Conclusion
The study intended to find out how facebook was used by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns.
From the findings above facebook was used differently by candidates during the election campaigns. The use of
facebook did not assure candidates victory but how the candidate used it affected their victory. Thus candidates
should learn how to use facebook effectively in their campaigns starting with how they reach their target
audience, the kinds of information they disseminate and what they used facebook for or rather the role facebook
plays in election campaigns. Overlooking the monitoring of opinion when using facebook did not cost majority
of the candidates who overlooked and only concentrated on mobilization to have a huge following including
those who hurled negative words and would not even vote for them.

5.4 Recommendations
In the light of the above findings, the following recommendations can be considered to improve the use of
facebook in election campaigns:

The Ministry of Information and Communication, the Communication Authority of Kenya and the Media
Council of Kenya should make stringent rules to look into the censorship of raw information shared on

20
facebook in election campaigns and recommend for strict penalties to all defaulters of the law. There should be
restriction on the facebook accounts to be used in election campaigns. Specific pages and groups on Facebook
should be designed specifically for election campaigns.

5.5 Suggestions for further researches

1) Since the study only focused on Moi University, a similar study can be done on another university or
even on a college.
2) The study only dealt with one social networking site, facebook, someone can research on the other social
networking sites.
3) The study only focused on candidates, a similar study could be done on voters
4) There is need to study the degree of censorship of the raw content posted on social media (facebook) in
election campaigns

REFERRENCES
Baran, N., ( 1995). Computers and capitalism: A tragic misuse of technology. Monthly Review, 47(4), 40-46.
Barber, B. R., Mattson, K., & Peterson, J. (1997). The state of “electronically enhanced democracy.”A
survey of the internet. New Brunswick, NJ: Walt Whitman Center of the Culture and Politics of Democracy.

Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003).Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. elections. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Castells, M. (2000).The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Conners, J. (2005). Understanding the third-person effect. Communication Research Trends 24(2): 1–22.

21
DYE, Thomas R., ZIEGLER, Harmon ( 1983). American Politics in the Media Age. Belmont: Wadsworth,
Inc., 1983.

Hacker, K. L. (1996b).Virtual democracy and computer mediated political communication (cmpc): The role of
the Clinton White House in facilitating electronic democratization and political interactivity. Paper presented to
the Speech Communication Association, San Diego.
http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/kenya.

Kothari, C.R(1990), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd Ed. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern

McKinnon, L. M. &Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential
debate effects. In L.L. Kaid & D.G. Bystrom (Eds). The electronic election: perspective on the 1996 campaign
communication (pp.191-206).

McLuhan, M. (1964): Understanding Media. New York: Mentor

Mossberger, K., C. Tolbert and M. Stansbury. 2003. Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide.
Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Mugenda, O and Mugenda, A. (2003).Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, Revised
ed.: Nairobi.ACTS press

Mwamunga, A., (1999), Developing an effective Marketing Information System for Publishers in Kenya: A
case study of Longhorn Kenya Limited Moi University, Faculty of Information Science Department of
Publishing and Media Studies

Ndavula J. O. &Mueni, J. (2014), New Media and Political Marketing in Kenya: The Case of 2013 General
Elections. International Journal of Arts and Commerce ISSN 1929-7106 www.ijac.org.uk
Odinga, C. (2013), Use of new media during the kenya elections. Retrieved from
http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:633138/FULLTEXT01.pdfFreedom House, (2013). Freedom on the
Net: Kenya. Retrieved from www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2013/kenya (socialbakers.com, 2013)
Shirky, C. (2011), the political power of social media; technology, the public sphere and political change,
January/February 2011 Essay

Socialbakers (2013), Kenya facebook statistics by countries.Retrieved on March 28, 2014 from
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/58685 (Facebook 2012).

22
 Wasswa, H. W. (2013). The role of social media in the 2013 presidential election campaigns in 2013
presidential elections in Kenya.

Williams C. B. and Gulati J. (2007). Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 midterm
elections. Paper for presentation at the American Political Science Association conference, Chicago, 30 August
– 2 September

Williams, C. B., &Gulati, G. J. (2006).The Evolution of Online Campaigning in Congressional Elections,

2000-2004. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.

APPENDIX I

QUESTIONNAIRE
This is a questionnaire for an academic study on the Use of facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO
election campaign. The information that you provide here will be held in utmost confidentiality and will
be used for purposes of this study only. Please tick in the box or fill in your response where applicable.

PART A: Respondent’s background

i. Year of study

1 2 3 4

ii. Which school are you?

…………………………………………………
iii. Age bracket

22-25 26-30 30 and above

18-21

iv. Gender male female

23
v. Which post did you vie for?

…………………………………………
vi. Did you make it or not?..............................................

PART B: Examining the use of facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election

(Tick appropriately (Use either a √ or ×))

a. Do you use facebook?

yes no

b. What is your facebook URL?

……………………………………………………………………………………....
c. Did you use facebook in your campaigns?
Yes No

d. Why? Give reasons for the answer above

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
e. Did you use your personal facebook account for the election campaigns?

Yes No

f. Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
g. Did you create a page or a group on facebook for your election campaigns?
……………………………………………………………………………………....

24
 If yes, site the name………………………………………………………………
h. Describe the facebook users you targeted while using facebook in your election campaign?

..................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

PART C: Finding out the uses of facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election

i. How did you use facebook in your campaign?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
j. Grade the following uses of facebook in your election campaign according to priority of usage.
Use numbers: 1- primary use, 2-secondary use,3-tertiary use,4-extended use

Political marketing Political mobilization

Political participation Monitoring opinion

k. What message were you disseminating on social media?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
l. Did you use facebook to do any of the following in your election campaign? Use a √
or ×

1) Solicit financial support Send invitation to a political rally/event

2) share a link to a political whatsapp group, video, photo and or audio

25
 3) share your manifesto
4) Insult an opponent

5) Spread propaganda
6) Monitor opinion

PART D: Assessing the level of using Facebook by candidates in the 2018 MUSO election campaigns

a. How frequent did you use Facebook in your election campaign?

…………………………………………………………………………………….
b. At what time of the day were you posting on Facebook during the election campaign?
………………………………………………………………………………………
c. How did you reach your target voter?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
d. Who was managing the account(s)?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
e. Did you achieve your goal of using facebook in your election campaigns?

Yes No

26
 APPENDIX II

MUSO CANDIDATES’ PROFILE

NO. NAME POST COLLEGE/ REG.NO CELL NO. FACEBOOK NAME/URL

CAMPUS
1 ISAAC CHAIRPERSON 003-MAIN CPE/1007/1 0728019741 Isaac Choge
https://web.facebook.com/chogei
KIPCHIRCHI 6
R CHOGE
2 JUSTINE CHAIPERSON 003-MAIN CD/146/16 0708365656 https://web.facebook.com/wekunda.justin

KASEMBELI
WEKUNDA
3 COLLINS CHAIRPERSON 003-MAIN BA/425/15 0724459411 HonOywayaOywaya
https://web.facebook.com/bencollo.oywaya
BENSON
OYWAYA
4 PETER CHAIRPERSON 001-MAIN ED/221/15 0727097852 https://web.facebook.com/peter.chorwa.3

CHORWA
5 FREDRICK CHAIRPERSON 003-MAIN ED/556/16 0704032743 Fredrick Simatwa(Mr. Principle)
https://web.facebook.com/fredrick.simatwa
SIMATWA
(PRINCIPLE)
6 ONSOMU RUNNING 003-MAIN ECO/114/16 0718354701 Onsonu Dinah
https://web.facebook.com/onsomu.dinah
NYANCHAM MATE(VICE
A DINAH CHAIRPERSON)
7 JOY RUNNING 006-MAIN BA/1137/16 Joy Shammah
https://web.facebook.com/joy.eleanor.7

27
 SHAMMAH MATE(VICE
WANDERA CHAIRPERSON)
8 ODIWUOR O. SECRETARY 001-MAIN ED/445/16 0705416358 Moses Captain Tisa
https://web.facebook.com/moses.tisa
MOSES GENERAL
(CAPTAIN
TISA)
9 KORIR SECRETARY 006-KPA ED/1048/17 0713832700 Lydiah Korir
https://web.facebook.com/lydiah.korir.5
LYDIAH J. GENERAL
10 MUNGAI FINANCE 002-MAIN BAE/431/16 0705159645 https://web.facebook.com/olemungaiwaregina

REGINA SECRETARY
PAUL
11 VICTOR FINANCE 007- ED/2008/16 0718780254 https://web.facebook.com/okumu.victor.1

OKUMU SECRETARY KITALE

12 AWESI M. ACADEMIC 002-MAIN CD/10/16 0712486832 https://web.facebook.com/swany.fredy

FREDRICK SECRETARY
13 SHERINE ACADEMIC 002-MAIN BAE/397/16 0703439881 https://web.facebook.com/sherine.peters.5

OMONDI SECRETARY
14 KATINDI O. ACADEMIC 002-MAIN BA/137/15 0702405894 https://web.facebook.com/david.kats.56

DAVID SECERTARY
https://web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000095307
15 GEOFREY CO- OO1-MAIN EDG/73/16
NYAKUNDI CURRICULAR
SECRETARY
https://web.facebook.com/elizabeth.mangwana
16 ELIZABETH CO- 001-MAIN EDN/40/16 0729941111
KWEYU CURRICULAR
MANG’WANA SECRETARY
https://web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000084473
17 BRIGID CO- 002-MAIN BA/147/16 0712103153
SIANTEI CURRICULAR
KASHOI SECRETARY
18 SARABHAI SPECIAL NEEDS 002-MAIN BA/533/16 0715994828 Hon Manu Sirkal
https://web.facebook.com/sarabhai.juniour
EMMANUEL AND SOCIAL

28
 (MANU AFFAIRS
SIRKAL)
19 WANDIA SPECIAL 005-CHS MED/47/16 0719226355 https://web.facebook.com/jean.ryan.3133

JEAN RYAN NEEDS AND

SOCIAL
AFFAIRS
KEY: those in bold are the ones who made it

29