Analysis Pf Policy Deliberative Argumentation Approach for Security Management in Kenya’s Kerio Valley
| dc.contributor.author | Yegon, Kibet B. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Muna, Wilson | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kipchumba, Heather | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-10-03T10:19:26Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-10-03T10:19:26Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-04 | |
| dc.description | Article | |
| dc.description.abstract | Purpose: This study examined the effectiveness of the Argumentation Approach as a deliberative policy framework in enhancing security management in the Kerio Valley, Kenya. The study aimed to assess how the use of structured, critical discussions and debates, as promoted by this approach, influences security outcomes in the region. Specifically, the research sought to determine the extent to which this approach, both independently and in combination with other deliberative frameworks, improves decision-making processes and addresses security challenges in the area. Through this investigation, the study aimed to provide contextspecific insights into the role of argumentative methods in security management, contributing to the development of more effective, adaptive, and sustainable security policies. Additionally, the study sought to inform future policy design by highlighting the benefits and limitations of using the Argumentation Approach in combination with other policy frameworks. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative techniques was utilized to explore the relationship between the argumentative approach (independent variable) and security management (dependent variable). Data collection targeted conflict-prone areas in the Kerio Valley, focusing on counties such as Baringo, Turkana, Elgeyo Marakwet, and West Pokot, with a total target population of 59,908 stakeholders, including government officials, community leaders, and household heads. Systematic and random sampling methods were used to select a representative sample of 455 respondents, with data collected through semi-structured questionnaires and interviews. A pilot test validated the research instruments, ensuring reliability through the Kaiser-MeyerOlkin measure and Cronbach's alpha. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v.25) through descriptive and inferential analyses, while qualitative data were thematically examined with NVivo software. Ethical standards, including informed consent and data confidentiality, were rigorously upheld, and data security was ensured throughout the research process. Finding: The study found that the Argumentation Approach, as a deliberative policy framework, has a significant positive impact on security management in the Kerio Valley. When used independently, the approach improves security outcomes by approximately 27%, promoting in-depth discussions and critical evaluations that lead to better-informed decisions and strategies. However, when combined with other deliberative frameworks, its effectiveness slightly diminishes to a 12.9% improvement, suggesting diminishing returns or overlapping benefits from multiple approaches. Despite this reduction, the Argumentation Approach remains beneficial, highlighting its importance in fostering open dialogue and addressing security issues comprehensively. These findings emphasize the value of the Argumentation Approach in security management while suggesting that its integration with other frameworks should be strategically considered to maximize its overall impact. Implication to Theory, Practice and Policy: The findings of this study have significant implications for theory, practice, and policy. From a theoretical perspective, the results support the value of structured communication frameworks, such as the Argumentation Approach, in enhancing decision-making and security management. The study reinforces existing theories on deliberative policy-making and structured communication, particularly in conflict-prone areas. Practically, the findings suggest that integrating the Argumentation Approach into security management can lead to more informed, comprehensive, and sustainable solutions, especially when used independently. However, its effectiveness may be reduced when combined with other frameworks, emphasizing the need for strategic integration. In terms of policy, the study highlights the importance of adopting deliberative methods in security management policies to ensure robust, culturally relevant, and context-specific interventions. Policymakers are encouraged to incorporate the Argumentation Approach alongside other frameworks, balancing their strengths to improve security outcomes in complex environments like the Kerio Valley. | |
| dc.identifier.issn | ISSN 2582-7421 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/31508 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews | |
| dc.title | Analysis Pf Policy Deliberative Argumentation Approach for Security Management in Kenya’s Kerio Valley | |
| dc.type | Article |