Their responses are however not different what the Ministry of Education (2007), explained that the teaching syllabus of citizenship education in Ghana aims at producing citizens who are competent, reflective, concerned and participatory so as to be able to contribute to the general development of communities and the country in the spirit of patriotism and democracy. Also, Aggarwal (1982) explained that citizenship education leads to the developing ideas, habits, and behaviours and useful attitudes which help individuals to be useful members of their societies. In a similar view, Adams et. al (2013) also explained that citizens education equip learners with the requisite knowledge and skills and positive attitudes to enable them to discharge their roles as true members of a society.

This section aims at exposing how often participants are educated civic knowledge and competence in their communities. When participants were asked how often they receive education on citizens, six out of 11 the community members explained that they receive citizenship during their years in junior high school and senior high school. Just as CM_3 put it, “citizenship education is a school subject and anyone who attended junior and senior high studied social studies which also deals with citizenship education” The views of the CM_6, however, clarified the importance they attached to citizenship education by stating, “as a school subject you just need to pass to better your grade. I was not good at integrated science so a good grade in social studies helped me” This shows that students aim at passing social studies as a school subject and not necessarily taking into consideration the main objective of making citizens informed and concerned. The remaining 5 five participants though confirmed citizenship education as part of the school curriculum, however; they proceeded to explain that they sometimes receive education on their respective roles as community members. However, they revealed that such educations are taken place during community meetings. The provision of education during community meetings was confirmed Assemblyman_1 when he states, “we organise meetings where the main aim to educate them about their roles and it rather unfortunate that not only the same people participate”.

This, therefore, revealed that the participants were familiar with citizenship education since national education curriculum specifies it as a subject of study. Citizenship education is available to those participate in community meetings and hence those who participate in meetings have high tendency to know their roles. Also, the study shows that who claimed they have they have other forms education on citizenship education are those who have had an experience in community meetings.

This section tested participants' knowledge on the roles of a good citizen. Participants were asked whether they consider themselves as good citizens. All the participants said they are good citizens because they pay their taxes and do not commit a crime in their communities. Also as good citizens, they vote during general and local level elections. These roles identified by the participants are not different from what Point of light (2012) interviewee revealed a citizen is some who follows the laws; pay taxes; has a voice in the society; informed and educated and also, aims at making his or her community a better place to live.

However, only a few went further to claim that good citizens must aim at making the community a better place to live and must, therefore, take part in any deliberation that affects the development of the community. In the words of CM_11, “good citizen must know whatever that happens in the society and must take not of the politics around him”. Similar to CM_11's view, CM_7 clearly quoted, “all good citizens must exhibit the spirit of patriotism and be patriotic, and you must take part in decisions that affect your life”. This shows that public participation was seen by some participants as a role of good citizens. It is this same vein that the ministry of education (2007) argues that a good citizen must be competent, reflective, concerned and participatory so as to be able to contribute to the general development of communities and the country in the spirit of patriotism and democracy. Also, Pattison (2012) also argues that a citizen must co-operate to change the community and such a person has to comprehend how decisions that affect him or her are made, who makes the decisions and above all how to influence those decisions.

The participants were asked a general question as to whether they consider individuals taking part in community decision making as a role of a good citizen. This question was mostly stressed to participants who did not recognise public participation as a role of good citizens.

Two out of the participants, CM_1 and CM_4 gave a partial affirmation that public participation may be a role of public participation; however, they believe that it does not matter if all community members do not attend meetings. CM_3, 6 and 8 also said that they cannot explicitly say that public participation in decision making is role or not while CM_5, on the other hand, said, “taking part in decision making is for those interested not a role of a community member, after paying my tax and voting I do not have to bother myself again”. In a similar vein, CM_10 and CM_9 claim that public participation is a role of every community member. While CM_2 and CM_7 explain that they know it is good for community members to take part in decision making, however they have not thought of it as a duty of they must strictly adhere to. Also, though all the assembly members interviewed regarded public participation as a role of community members, they expressed that there are some issues they sometimes do not involve citizens.

This section, as just section 4.3.2, also reveals that though some participants participate in community decision making, they do so for other reason. Such reasons are their relationship with some officials and their social status in their respective communities. It, therefore, shows that majority of the participant could not explicitly state that public participation is a role of every community member.

This section discusses the barriers to public participation in decision making in communities in Ghana. In also discusses the benefits of public participation in decision making. In order to ascertain peoples' perception about the barriers and benefits of public participation, the researcher asked the participants (community members), the factors that prevent them or others from taking part in local decision making and their expectation from taking part in decision making. However, since some of the community members said they have had experience of local community discussions, participants who have local community discussion experience were asked to explain the challenges they face that they perceive can be a challenge to effective public participation.

This section discusses community members and Assembly members' views on the barrier of public participation in their communities.

Seven out of the eleven participants gave clear indication that public participation is time-consuming and expensive. In the views of CM_11, he stated, “sometimes I have to forgo some important meetings to attend our lengthy meetings”. Also, CM_3 stated, “it will be very difficult for me to waste my precious time on these community meetings that do not yield any proper results”. Again, in a similar vein, CM_9 asked, “time is money, what do you expect me to gain from these meetings?” The three assemblymen interviewed also said that it takes a lot of resources to organise meetings with the community. Assemblyman_2 went further to explain that aside from the hiring of plastic chair and canopies sometimes, he has to sometimes provide other materials like water and drinks, however, the fund provided by the assembly is not enough to cater for all the expenses. This is confirmed by Irvin and Stanbury (2004) and Muse and Narsiah (2015) when they indicated that participation tend to be time-consuming and expensive to both government and citizens and as well, Lowndes et. al., (2001) similarly argue in their study that unrealistic public participation arises when authorities are restrained by financial while Kathlene, L. Martin, J. A. (1991 p. 48) also stressed that officials perceive citizens' involvement to also be expensive.

Also, all participants were of the view that the major challenge to effective participation is a lack of trust the community members have for public officials. Nine out of the eleven community members expressed that they do not trust their officials. CM_4 explicitly stated, “It is difficult to be discussing your needs with people you do not trust. The discussion will surely not yield any good results”. While the remaining two (2) however just listed lack of trust among the other challenges they revealed. CM_2 and CM_7 shared similar views and they explained that most people do not attend meetings because most of our officials do not explain to them how resources are really been allocated. Many community members feel they are been cheated and since their expectation are not always met they feel the officials have anything proper for them. All the community members feel the officials are not transparent enough.

Some community members also expressed worry that assembly members involve those they are closer to such as friends and some community traditional leaders into decision making. CM_6 stated, “these officials have nice messages when they want power and after voting for them you don not even see them if you are not a friend or a relative or someone who has a high position”.

Also, all the assemblymen admitted that there has been an issue of trust between them and the people. Some guessed the fact that they have not been able to deliver all their promises. Just as assembly man_2 put it, “I know for sure people do not participate in decision making because they feel we do not represent their interested, it must be noted that certain are beyond us and as I earlier said the funds we receive are not that much to perform miracles”. The issue of trust for public officials is, however, not a new phenomenon and as revealed by Der Bebelleh, ., & Nobabumah (2013) that lack of trust for public officials is a major constraint to public participation in communities.

Assembly man_1 also revealed that aside from the community members lacking trust for them (officials) there is a lack of transparency within the assembly that also affect the smooth execution of his roles that eventually affect influence public participation. He explained the instances where contracts are awarded unevenly among them in the assembly. Though an assemblyman has to be non-partisan, but some have revealed their political affiliation and those with their party in power benefit more than those whose party are not in power. This he believes prevents them from effectively fulfilling their goals leading to community members not trusting them. His view is similar to what Ahenkan, Bawole and Domfeh (2013) revealed in their study about improving citizens' participation in local government planning and financial management in Ghana. They asserted that there is the lack of transparency in the awarding of contracts for developmental projects to a specific society, especially when the leaders are not from the ruling party. In such instances, full information about vital policies is not revealed to people. However, party loyalists are the people likely to attend meeting and forums regarding the planning process of policies.

Lastly, some participants revealed that community members are reluctant to participate in decision making because of their lack of interest in political issues; lack of information and skills. In the views of CM_11, “we sometimes receive a meeting call up late. Information is relayed to those close to the one organising those meetings”. CM_8 and CM_6 also raised doubt about their opinions when they were asked their why they do not participate in decision making. CM_8, however, asked, “What am I going to even say in such meetings? While CM_6 stated, “I do not I think I have something good to share so I don't have to bother myself”. Their views suggested that some community members do not have the necessary skills and also lack knowledge about how decisions are made in their various communities. Such views have been revealed by Der Bebelleh & Nobabumah, (2013); Kathlene, Martin, (1991 p. 48) and Ahenkan, Bawole and Domfeh (2013), when they all revealed that it is challenging to effectively involve citizens when they do not have opportunities to official and technical information and they lack access to critical points. Bebelleh & Nobabumah (2013) also asserted that lack of citizens' interest in political issues will prevent them from taking part in the decision-making process.

To conclude, it has been revealed that community members are disincentivized to participate in decision making because it is time-consuming and expensive on both the part of officials and community members because some officials perceive that it public participation require resource while some community members feel reluctant to forgo their precious time which could be used in other productive areas. Another constraint is the lack of trust among officials as well as a lack of trust for officials. Also, other barriers to public participation are a lack of information and citizens' lack of interest in political issues and lastly, party politics within communities and public offices.

All the 14 participants perceived that public participation will lead effective decision making where the views of the whole community would be well known by their various public officials. Assemblyman_3, therefore, stated, “Sometimes there are suggestions that some community members make that you may not be thinking of”. Some community members interviewed also claimed that taking part in decision making makes them to feel they belong to their community. CM_2 claimed “I think one benefit enjoyed by taking part in decisions in a community is that I know as least I exist and have a voice even if it is not loud” It was also revealed that public participation in some way or the other keeps official officials on theirs. In the words of Assemblyman 3, “you cannot just ignore them sometimes because the pressure the youth particularly mount on me is a lot and it leads me to also pressure my heads”.

Some of the community members, who have community meetings experiences, explained that they sometimes better understand some activities of the assembly during community meetings. It can be deduced that their understanding of the assembly activities is likely to reduce mistrust they have their officials and also reduce the issue of litigation in such communities. These benefits revealed in study can be confirmed by the works of Spicer (1995); Moynihan, (2003); Mohammed, (2013); Moynihan, (2003), and Brager et al. (1987), when they revealed in their works that public participation persuade citizens decisions build trust and minimise enmity and as well help in the gaining legitimacy of the decision. Public participation bridges the perceived gap between governments and the citizens.

This section examines the techniques that are used in communities to engage community members in decision making. The participants were asked to elaborate on the techniques predominantly used in their localities and also suggest the possible techniques they consider to be appropriate.

Two of the assemblymen said they communicate with their community members through their communities information centres since they consider it to effective. They explain that public meetings are also announced through these information centres. In the words of Assemblyman_2, “there are two separate information centres that are privately owned which are used to disseminate to the community at least for sometimes before any meeting or gathering is held”. The other remaining assemblyman, however, said that communication among him and his members are mostly `house to house notification' and also for public meetings to be held, the members are notified in a form of a `snowball techniques' where members who have information pass in on to others who do not have. He claimed his community does not have any form of an information centre.

The assemblymen were asked to comment on the effectiveness of the methods they use. They explained that it is convenient and less expensive. On the other hand, they also explained that there is the possibility that information may not reach all the community members. This is because some members may not be around when announcement are made. Also, there is nothing to check whether information passed on to the other would be delivered to other people.

When they were asked about the possible techniques they may consider, they listed separately, neighbourhood questionnaires, special groups to that will tackle different issues in the community. They also considered the use social media as most of the youth as predominantly on social media and also community information board as most people in communities can Read and write. In the words of assembly man_3, “it will be appropriate if we are able to contact them on social media and also if we have places where community members can go and access the information they want in the community”. However, he added, “these things all involve money”

Five (5) out of the eleven (11) participants said they have information centres that disseminate vital information in communities CM_7 stated, “My community has an information Centre which announces provides us with information in the community and that is what officials use to pass on information to us”. The remaining six (6) said the, however, did not mention of community information centre, but the made mention of the `snowball technique'. Some of the participants also revealed that they obtained some vital information during their `keep-fit' meetings and also when their community organises programs such as clean-up exercises that are seldom organised. In the words of CM_10, “In our last cleaning up we organised, we had the time to discusses some issues bothering and the assembly officials also alerted those present about some news developments that are likely to take place”.

The participants were asked about other techniques they consider to be appropriate if used to engage them in decision making. In answering, five out of the eleven participants explicitly stated that officials should ensure that information delivery and announcement should not restrict to only.



CHAPTER FIVE. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The previous chapter analysed and discussed the data collected during an interview with the some community members and some assemblymen from some communities in Brong Ahafo region Ghana. In this section, however, a summary of the findings are made, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are outlined.

The research was conducted to find out citizens' general perception of public participation in terms of the power dynamics in the communities that determines participation spaces and the level with which community members are involved local decision making; their general knowledge on citizenship education that influence their willingness to participate in local decision makings; the benefits they expect from participation and the specific barriers that prevent them participating decision making as wells as the techniques used to involve community members in decisions that directly affect them.

In addition, the researcher further obtained a sample size of 14 as the sample or population size. To contact these respondents, the researcher used snowball sampling technique and purposive sampling technique together. The researcher conducted an in-depth semi-structured interview with the participants. The interview findings were manually organized, described and identified with the main objectives of the study which are to examine the power dynamics in decision making in Ghana; explore the citizens' knowledge on civic education; explore the benefits and barriers of effective public participation Ghana, and examine the techniques employed by public official during public participation. The findings were therefore analysed with the aim of providing answers to main questions of the research.

This section presents the findings that aimed at answering the research questions that serve as a foundation for the whole research. The research questions were; how are power shared during policy formulation, implementation and evaluation? What level of knowledge do citizens have on citizenship education? What are the possible barriers and benefit of public participation in Ghana? What techniques are employed by officials to involve citizens in decision making?

In finding out citizens' general views of public participation in power shared during policy formulation, implementation and evaluation, it was discovered that decisions making spaces are created for community members in Ghanaian communities to participate in decision making. That is to say, citizens have several means with which their opinions can reach the decision-making board. There are opportunities where citizens directly take an effective part in local decisions. However, the study reveals also that though spaces are created; there are several levels where citizens' views are presented in final decisions. The study reveals that both the officials and community members attested that final decisions are mostly influenced at the national levels. Hence, citizens perceive that their opinion has little or no effect on policies that are introduced in their communities. They perceive themselves as mere representatives during local decision-making organised by the government officials. The study again reveals that power to decide who participates in decision making is still entrusted to government officials. Therefore, it can be argued that citizens perception that they have little or no influence on final decisions discourage them from participating in local decision-making and other forms of political participations since some of the participants attributed their self-exclusion from decision making to their belief that their views are not represented in final decisions. It must be noted that those who participated in decision making pointed out that they do so because of the relationship existing between them and some of the officials which are either they are affiliated to same political party or they are close friends and family members while other participate in decision making because of their roles as community leaders.

The study also unearths the fact that, with respect to citizens' knowledge in citizenship education, most citizens perceive citizenship education as a form of education aim at making citizens informed in order to take effective part the development of their communities. Also citizenship education is supposed to make citizens know their roles and responsibilities as members of a community. The study reveals that most of the citizens experienced citizenship education during their basic school education as it was taught as a school subject under social studies. However, aside from their encounter with citizenship education during their basic school, they have not received any form of a general education educating them on their civic knowledge and competence. It must be made clear that those who received some form of education are those who mostly attend local meetings.

Not all, the study also revealed that while all participants regarded voting, paying taxes and abstaining from crimes as roles and obligations of citizens, they did not regard participating in a local decision as a duty of a community member. They perceive that public participation is reserved for those who have an interested in it. It argued that citizens who participate in local decision making are likely to improve their civic knowledge and competence than those who not do participate as education aimed at improving civic competence are limited to those who are already involved in public participation. Therefore, the recent decline in public participation could also be partly attributed to lack of education on civic knowledge and competence.

The study also reveals that, in general, the majority of the participants agreed to lack of information; mistrust for governments and lack of citizens' interest in political issues as the barriers to public participation as recognised by the community members involved in the study. With respect to public participation being time to consume and expensive, the assemblymen noted the limited funds given to them to organise public meetings and forum while the community members involved in the study expressed other things they use their time for which are profitable. They, however, valued public meetings and forums as less valuable. In exploring the benefits of public participation, the researcher found out that majority of the respondents agreed that public participation builds trust; leads to better decisions; strengthens democracy; generates good ideas, and makes politicians accountable to avoid ligation.

Lastly, the study also considered some the approaches that can use to improve participation. The researcher discovered that public meetings and forums are the major techniques that are used to involve community members. Also, it was revealed community members receive information either through community information systems; during youth meeting (keep fit clubs) or passing of information from one person to the other. Suggesting new techniques to improve participation, the participants, however, suggested the use social media groups such as Facebook, Whatsapp etc where information can easily be disseminated to all members within a group. They also suggested the use of printed questionnaires that could be given to households. They perceived that with the right techniques which are community specific, citizens could obtain required information needed in order to effectively take part in decision making.

It could be concluded from the findings that, though community members have opportunity to take part in the decision making of issues that directly affect them, citizens' level of representation during meetings is partial as final decisions are mostly influenced at the national levels and community members have little or no influence in governmental community development. It can therefore be argued that the decline in political participation in Ghana is partly due to citizens' perception of not being able to influence government's policies for communities that are mostly determined at the national levels.

Also, the citizens' lack of education on civic competence and knowledge demotivates them to participate in decision making. As they consider that decision making at the local levels are reserved for those are interested, they (community members) are demoralized to participate in such decisions. Improved knowledge in citizenship education will likely enable them to recognize their roles and effectively take part in decision making. Without citizenship education, citizens may not be able to contribute effectively. This is because they have to comprehend how decisions are made and who makes decisions. Citizenship education would therefore prepare them for their participatory role in their communities

Again, the study also noted that public participation is time consuming and expensive. It also noted mistrust for governments and lack of citizens' interest in political issues as the major barriers to public participation in Ghana. Despite the barriers to public participation the citizens unearthed, they believe that public participation builds trust between the citizens and the government; leads to better decisions, strengthens democracy; generates good ideas, and makes politicians accountable.

Lastly, the study also shows that community members are involved in local decision making through mainly public forum and meeting methods of participation and also the use of information centres mostly used to disseminate information to them ( community members) which all aim assembling community members at specific. These methods or techniques, however, seem not to be appropriate due to the changing nature of communities. It can argued that with the use of appropriate method or techniques, citizens can be motivated to participate in decision making. The method to pass on information to members in a community also plays a major in promoting public participation.

In conclusion, based on the results of the research, the researcher concludes that citizens can be motivated to partake in decision making when they are allowed to vote directly on policies that affect them. That is to either accept or reject policies proposed by the government that affect them (citizens). Also, public participation can be improved when citizens are educated on the policies, and again, when frequent audit hearing on policies and a frequent meeting between government officials and citizens are held.



The diagram above explains that to motivate citizens to participate in local decision makings, stakeholders must consider the power dynamics that creates spaces and also determines the power that influence final decision making. Also, citizens' civic knowledge and competence influence their willingness to take part in decision. Their knowledge and competence make them well informed to understand the decision making processes and what is also required from them as members of a specific community. Lastly, the usage of public participation techniques that are community specific motivates citizens to participate in decision. These techniques aid stakeholders to disseminate the needed information to the required people and ensure members views are well presented and represented. Therefore, when citizens have power to influence final decisions, possess the required civic competence and knowledge and the required techniques are used to involve them in decision making, they become motivated to participate in decision making and it also leads to right decisions being made.

Based on the research, the researcher recommends that the government, in order to improve public participation, should make citizens fully aware of the circumstances that hinder them from taking part in a decision-making process. The government should educate citizens to improve their civic competence and knowledge. Therefore, the government and other stakeholders of public participation should implement an intense adult education aimed particularly at the civic rights and responsibility of citizens. To motivate citizens, the government should ensure that policies are also explained to citizens by providing the needed education.

The government should involve citizens in policy making process in order to ensure that good ideas are generated. Also, to ensure that the relationship between citizens and public officials in terms of trust is strengthened; and to promote democracy, the government should ensure that citizens views are reflected in final decisions and also, officials records must be made readily available to' citizens. To do so, the government must implement a policy that provides a mandate to citizens vote either to accept or reject policies that affect them. The government should introduce a participatory budgetary policy at the local levels.

The government should also hold frequent meetings with citizen so that the citizens feel that they are part of the decision making process and also contribute to the success of policies that would be formulated and implemented in their local community. In doing so, stakeholders should ensure they employ techniques that are would be unique to various community.

The governments, in order to improve and maintain citizens' level of motivation to take involve themselves in local politics, should regulate the rate at which community members are contacted to for their views and opinion.

The researcher suggests that further research is conducted on the relationship between. The researcher suggests an in depth study on the relationship between party politics (political affiliation) and trust and their influence public participation. Also, the researcher suggests a further in depth study on the relationship between adult civic education and local government politics.



REFERENCES

civic education ghana school

Abudu, A. M., & Moses, N. F. (2014). Civic Awareness and Engagement in Ghana: The Curricular Implication. European Scientific Journal, 10(4).

Adams, F. H., & Quarshie, S. A. A. M. (2013). Effective Teaching of Citizenship Education in Primary Schools in Ghana.

Aggarwal, J (1982). Teaching of Social Studies. Delhi: Vikas Publishing House

Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Critical Review. English Linguistics Research, 3(1), 39.

Altay, A. (1999). The Efficiency of Bureaucracy on the Public Sector.

Birskyte, L. (2013). Involving citizens in public decision making: the case of participatory budgeting in Lithuania. Financial Theory and Practice, 37(4), 383-402.

Brager, G., Specht, H., & Torczyner, J. L. (1987). Community organizing. Columbia University Press.

Browne, K. (2005). Snowball sampling: using social networks to research non?heterosexual women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 47-60.

Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. John Wiley & Sons.

Der Bebelleh, F., & Nobabumah, A. S. (2013). Political Decentralization and Local Participation in Ghana: Perspectives from the Upper West Region.Public Policy and Administration Research, 3(11), 12-25.

DeSIgns, P., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Perspectives, and Policy Formation.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 46-63.

Du Gay, P. (2005). Bureaucracy and liberty: State, authority, and freedom.The values of bureaucracy, 41-61.

Edelman Trust Barometer, 2012. Record decline in Government [online]. Avai lable at: <http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/EdelmanInsights/2012- edelman- trust-barometer-global-deck/5>.

European Institute for Public participation. (2009) Public Participation in Europe: An international perspective

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Finkel, S. E. (2002). Civic education and the mobilization of political participation in developing democracies. The journal of Politics, 64(4), 994-1020.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frempong, A. K. (2007, March). Constitution-Making and Constitutional Rule in Ghana. In Ghana at Fifty: Government, Politics and Development, Golden Jubilee Colloquium, Department of Political Science, University of Ghana, (March 1-2, 2007). Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2001). Democratizing Africa: Halting Progress, Outstanding Problems, and Serious Dilemmas. Ghana Universities Press.

Frempong, A. K. (2007, March). Constitution-Making and Constitutional Rule in Ghana. In Ghana at Fifty: Government, Politics and Development, Golden Jubilee Colloquium, Department of Political Science University of Ghana, (March 1-2, 2007). Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2001). Democratizing Africa: Halting Progress, Outstanding Problems, and Serious Dilemmas. Ghana Universities Press.

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, 148-170. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2), 141-163.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. I. Boston: Beacon. Birskyte, L. (2013). Involving citizens in public decision making: the case of participatory budgeting in Lithuania. Financial Theory and Practice, 37(4), 383-402

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public administration review, 64(1), 55-65.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1977). The influence of research on education practice. Educational Researcher, 6(8), 5-12.

Kpormegbe, S. K., & Ahorlu, C. K. (2014). The Role of Community Participation in Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Childhood Malaria in South-Eastern Ghana. Ghana medical journal, 48(2), 58-65.

Kweit, M. G., & Kweit, R. W. (1981). Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. Praeger Publishers.

Lerner, J., 2011. Participatory budgeting: Building community agreement around tough budget decisions. National Civic Review, 100(2), pp. 30-35. doi: 10.1002/ncr.20059

Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2001). Trends in public participation: part 1-local government perspectives. Public administration, 79(1), 205-222.

Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2006). Public deliberation: A manager's guide to citizen engagement. IBM center for the Business of Government.

Lukensmeyer, C. J., Goldman, J., & Stern, D. (2011). Assessing public participation in an open government era. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., and Lars Hasselblad Torres. Public deliberation: A manager's guide to citizen engagement. IBM center for the Business of Government, 2006.

Maloff, B., Bilan, D., & Thurston, W. (2000). Enhancing public input into decision making: Development of the Calgary Regional Health Authority public participation framework. Family & Community Health, 23(1), 66-78

Marzuki, A. (2015). Challenges in the Public Participation and the Decision Making Process. Sociologija i prostor, 53(1 (201)), 21-39.

Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 275-293.

Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (MOESS) (2007) Teaching syllabus for citizenship education (Basic 4-6). Accra: MOESS

Mohammed, A. K. (2013). Civic Engagement in Public Policy Making: Fad or Reality in Ghana? Politics & Policy, 41(1), 117-152.

Moynihan, D. P. (2003). Normative and Instrumental Perspectives on Public Participation Citizen Summits in Washington, DC. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 164-188.

Muse, S. A., & Narsiah, S. (2015). Public Participation in Selected Civilizations: Problems and Potentials.Robert (2000, p. 16) as cited in Marzuki's (2015) studies on Challenges in the Public Participation and the Decision Making Process highlighted the methods of participation in Leicester Cityis Agenda 21.

Pattisson P. (2012, July 20). Why Citizenship Matters. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wTkPgCRzqk

Point of Light (Jul 25, 2012) What does it mean to be a citizen? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhAV-Z7thbc

Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D., & Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995).Power, process and participation: tools for change. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP).

Stiftung, F. E. (2010 p.76). A guide to district assemblies in Ghana. Accra: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Ghana. Available from: http://library. fes. de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10487. pdf.[Accessed: 10/03/2016].

Styhre, A. (2007). The innovative bureaucracy: bureaucracy in an age of fluidity. Routledge

Walliman, N. (2005). Your research project: a step-by-step guide for the first-time researcher. Sage

Westergaard, K. (1986). People's participation, local government and rural development: The case of West Bengal, India (No. 8). Centre for Development Research

World Bank, 2013. Participatory Budget Formulation??Washington: The World Bank.

Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880-892.

African leaders urged to introduce participatory budgeting into local government. (2007, February 2). Ghana News Agency. Retrieved from http://www.ghananewsagency.org/economics/african-leaders-urged-to-introduce-participatory-budgeting-into-local-government-2407



APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Demography of interviewees

Table 1: Number of respondents. This table shows the total numbers of respondent the researcher involved during the data collection process.

	N	Percentage
Officials	3	21.4
Community members	11	78.6
Total	14	100

Field survey, 2017

Table 2: Educational background.

This table provides an overview of the educational attainment of the interviewees the researchers involved in the study. The section further disaggregates the interviewee to into educational attained of officials from the district assembly and community members

	N	percentage
Senior high school	1	7.1
Diploma	3	21.4
Degree	3	21.4
Masters	7	50.0
Total	14	100.0

Source: Field survey

Table 3: Education level of public officials

This table shows only the level education officials from the district assembly have attained.

	N	percentage
Degree	1	33.3
Diploma	1	33.3
Senior high school	1	33.3
Total	3	100



Table 4: level of community member's education

This table shows only the educational level of the community members the researcher involved the study.

	N	PERCENTAGE
Diploma	2	18.2
Degree	2	18.2
Masters	7	63.6
Total	11	100

Source: field survey

Table 5: Sex distribution of interviewees

The table shows the sex distribution of the interviewees the researcher involved in the study.

	N	PERCENTAGE
Males	10	71.4
Females	4	28.6
Total	14	100.0

Source: field survey

Table 6: sex distribution of public officials

This section table the sex distribution of district assembly officials that were interviewed during the data collection process.

	N	percentage
Males	3	100
Females	0	0
total	3	100

Source: field survey

Table 7: Sex distribution of community members

This table however, depicts the total number of males and females the researcher accessed during the data collection process of the study.

	N	PERCENTAGE
Males	7	63.6
Females	4	36.4
Total	11	100.0

Source: field survey

Table 8: Age distribution of interviewees

This table provides information about the age distribution of the interviewees involved the study. With the exception of the public officials who openly stated their age, some of the community members who were interviewed just provided an age range while others made known their specific real age to the researcher.

	N	percentage
24 and below	1	7.1
25 to 30	8	57.1
31 to 35	2	14.3
36 and above	3	21.4
Total	14	100.0

Source: field survey



Appendix 2: Interview guide 1

This guide was used to interview the public officials.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I humbly solicit your help in a research on public participation in decision in the community. This study is purely for academic purposes and it hopes to extend our knowledge on the theme. You will be contributing to its success if you respond to the items as frankly and honestly as possible. Please be assured that your responses will be used solely for the purpose of this study and for that matter any disclosure you will make shall be kept confidential. Moreover, your anonymity is guaranteed by not indicating your name or institution. Your voluntary participation in the study is very much appreciated.

SECTION A. BACKGROUND STUDIES

Q1. Can you tell me about yourself? (Age and educational background etc)

Q2. What motivated you to become an assemblyman?

Q3. What were your expectations before you became an assemblyman? How does the reality of being an assembly differ from your initial expectations?

Q4. Have your expectations been met?

Q5. What major activities have been able to partake in your community?

SECTION B: CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Q6.What are the major challenges as an assembly man or middleman between the assembly and the community, you are facing both within the assembly and your community?

i. from the assembly

ii. from the community

Q7. How have you dealt with such challenges?

i. the assembly

ii. the community

Q8. What major changes if given the opportunity, you will like to make within

I. the assembly

ii. the community

SECTION C. LEVEL OF REPRESENTATION

Q9. How are political decisions made in your community?

i. Who are the main participants in political decision making in your community?

ii. How do you involve community members?

iii. At what stage of decision making process are community members involved?

a. why those stages?

v. How are final decisions reached?

a. who plays the most import role in reaching the final decisions

b. How can community members reject government's decisions? Examples of instances where government's decision was rejected

vi. Describe briefly the activeness of community members in these stages.

Q10. Is there a need to involve community member in decision making?

i. why is there a need to involve them or not involve them? (difficulties and benefits of participation.

SECTION D. COMMUNITY MEMBER'S KNOWLEDGE IN GOVERNANCE

Q11. As an assembly member, what do you think are the expected roles of community members in the process of governance?

Do they perform these roles?

a. If yes, what motivates them to perform?

b. if no, what are the reasons preventing them from fulfilling their roles?

Q12.Can you describe briefly examples of opportunities you have provided to educate your community members about their expected roles since you became an assembly member?

If you have,

i. How many times and when?

ii. What were the major challenges and benefits?

If you have not,

i. What might be the reason for not providing an opportunity to educate them?

SECTION E. TECHNIQUES IN INVOLVING CITIZENS

Q13. Can you describe how you communicate with your members?

a. Are there any other suitable means?

b. What issues do you talk about?

Appendix 3: Interview guide 2

This guide was used to interview community members

Dear Sir/Madam,

I humbly solicit your help in a research on public participation in decision in the community. This study is purely for academic purposes and it hopes to extend our knowledge on the theme. You will be contributing to its success if you respond to the items as frankly and honestly as possible. Please be assured that your responses will be used solely for the purpose of this study and for that matter any disclosure you will make shall be kept confidential. Moreover, your anonymity is guaranteed by not indicating your name or institution. Your voluntary participation SECTION A. BACKGROUND STUDIES

Q1. Can you me tell me about yourself. (Age and Educational background and Employment status)

SECTION B: KNOWLEDGE ON CIVI C EDUCATION

Q2. How do you consider yourself a member of this community?

Q3. How do you involve yourself in communal activities?

a. what specific roles do you play in such activities?

Q4. Describe your relationship with your assembly member?

Q5. What do you think are the expected roles of assembly members in the process of governance?

Do they perform these roles?

a. If yes, what motivates them to perform?

b. if no, what are the reasons preventing them from conforming to their roles?

Q6. How have your MMD assembly educated community members about their roles and responsibilities community decision making?

If they have,

i. How many times and when

ii. What were the major challenges they face in educating the public?

iii. What been the benefits?

If they have not,

i. Describe the drawbacks preventing them from providing opportunities to educate the community members?

SECTION C. LEVELS OF REPRESENTATION

Q7. How are political decisions made in your community?

i. Who are the main participants in political decision making in your community?

ii. How do they involve community members?

iii. At what stage of decision making process are community members involved?

a. why those stages?

v. How are final decisions reached?

a. who plays the most import role in reaching the final decisions?

b. How can community members reject government's decisions? Examples of instances where government's decision was rejected

vi. Describe briefly the activeness of community members in these stages.

SECTION D: CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Q8 what are the major challenges as you face as a member in a community dealing the assembly and your residence in the community during decision making?

i. the assembly

ii. the community

Q9. What have been your responses?

i. the assembly

ii. the community

Q10. What major changes if given the opportunity, you would like to make within

I. the assembly

ii. the community

SECTION E: TECHNIQUES IN INVOLVING CITIZENS

Q11. Can you describe how you communicate with your fellow community members?

a. Are there any other suitable means?

b. What issues do you talk about?

Размещено на Allbest.ru