Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Methodology Fame and Shame

1. The study was both quantitative and qualitative involving administration of questionnaires to gather people’s perceptions which were backed by a meticulous documentary review of relevant records and reports. Questionnaires were developed and pre-tested for collection of primary data. The results of the quantiable data analysis were corroborated with secondary
and qualitative data obtained from;
o Court records;
o Reports of the Inspectorate of Government,
o Office of Auditor General,
o Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority;
o Newspapers
o Legislative documents;
o Research reports
o Policy papers,
o Hansards of Parliament and
o National Integrity Survey Reports among others.

The survey sought to identify two categories of persons namely; people who are perceived to be championing the cause for fighting corruption on the one hand and shame those individuals who have perceived committed flagrant acts of corruption. The focus of the study was not on personalities but on specific events and/or acts of commission or omission. A total of 20 persons were nominated in the category of anti corruption champions while 20 persons were nominated for shaming. All the names were then subjected to comprehensive background checking which resulted in the profiling the names of top 9 anti corruption villains and top 9 anti corruption heroes.

2 Scope of the Study
The study was conducted at National and Regional levels covering a sample frame of 1,775 respondents. The respondents were randomly selected from each of the different regions of Uganda as indicated below:
1.Central Mpigi,Wakiso,Mukono & Kampala 714
2.Western Rwenzori Region 314
3.Eastern Teso Region 312
4. Northern Lira and Apac 435

3 Sample selection

A total of 1775 respondents were randomly selected and interviewed. I order to ensure a more geographically balanced distribution of responses and reduce bias; the respondents were selected from different institutions and districts across the country.
4. Data Collection
Two sets of questionnaires were designed in order to capture data one for the name group and another for the shame category. The questionnaires were pre-tested in Kampala and Wakiso districts.
5 Data Entry, Cleaning and Analysis
After the data collection exercise, the questionnaires were coded mostly to capture responses from open ended / unstructured questions. Computer software – Epi Info was then employed to capture data from the questionnaires. The vitality of this programme is anchored on its ability to limit the number of errors which may be made during the time of data entry. Like already indicated above, the data was then exported to the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). SPSS was preferred due to its simplicity and comprehensiveness in analyzing data. After data analysis, the report was written in MS word and the charts, graphs and tables were generated using Microsoft Excel.
6 Confidentiality of Interviewees
For purposes of confidentiality, which was critical for the success and objectivity of the study,interviews were conducted in discrete places and some names of respondents were not recorded. In order for most government employees to participate in this study, it was important for them to be assured that their identity would be kept secret for fear of retribution should it become known that they nominated their bosses or colleagues especially in the category of shame.
7 Documentary sources of Data
During the study, extensive review was carried out on the following documents:
• Newspaper reports on the activities of the named official and issues that border on
governance and democracy were retrieved.
• Inspectorate of Government Reports (Various)
• Auditor General’s Reports (Various)
• The Hansards of Parliament
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority Reports
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended, 1995
• The UN convention against corruption, 2003
• African Union Convention on preventing and combating 2003
• New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD)
• Penal Code Act (1970)
• Prevention of Corruption Act 1970
• Leadership Code Act 2003
• Public Service Act (2005)
• The Inspectorate of Government Act 2002
• Local Government Act (1997 as amended)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act(2003)
• Access to Information Act 2005, (ATIA)
• Budget Act 2001
• Public Finance and Accountability Act 2003 (PFAA)
• Public Service Standing Orders
• Statistics Act 1998
• National Audit Act, 2008
• Anti Money Laundering Bill
• Anti Corruption Act 2009
• Whistle Blower Bill 2008
• Kakooza Mutale vs IGG and AG HCA No.40/2003 (unreported)
• Hon Jim Muhwezi vs AG and IGG Misc Application No. 18/2007
• Park Royal Ltd vs AG and IGG Constitutional Petiton No.20/2006
• Kikonda Butema farms ltd vs IGG HCT-00-CV-MA-593/2003 (Unreported)
• IGG vs AMPROC and IGG HCT-00-CC-OS-248/2007 Arising out if CS No. 735/06

Next are the shamed and famed personalities: full book visit

No comments: