STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND
INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN STUDENTS
BY
EROH JIDE AYANSANWO
MATRIC NO: 170888
DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS,
FACULTY OF SCIENCE,
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
SUPERVISOR: MR. O.B. AKANBI
DECEMBER, 2015.
i
DEDICATION
I dedicate this research work to the Almighty God whom had made it possible for me to
succeed in it.
ii
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this research was carried out by EROH Jide Ayansanwo with matriculation
number 170888 of the Department of Statistics, University of Ibadan under my supervision.
____________________ ____________________
Date Supervisor Mr. O.B. Akanbi,
P.dip, B.Sc, M.Sc.(Statistics) Ibadan
Department of Statistics,
University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Nigeria.
____________________ _____________________
Date Ag. Head of Department Dr. J.F. Ojo,
B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. (Statistics) Ibadan
Department of Statistics,
University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Nigeria.
____________________ _____________________
Date External Examiner Dr. Femi B. Adebola
Department of Statistics,
Federal University of Technology Akure,
Akure, Ondo State,
Nigeria.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to say a big thank you to my one and only amiable and awesome Lecturer and
Supervisor Mr. O.B. Akanbi and I also want to appreciate the time he has created even when
it is not convenient for him. An adage says, “Time is priceless no one can buy time no matter
how wealthy the person may be” but he has created that time out of no time. His judgment is
free and fair. I pray the Almighty God will crown his effort towards our success with glory
and grant him the desire of his heart.
Also, I want to appreciate my parent Mr. Johnson and Mrs. Olubunmi Eroh for their moral,
financial support from childhood till this present moment and also for their prayers and I pray
that the both of them shall reap the good thing they have sown in my life. Because, the only
everlasting property a parent can leave for his child is sound education and not willing all the
billions of currencies they have in this world. If a child is not given sound education then
such a child would mismanage the fund. And also the both of them are my mentor and my
inspiration. They are the best father and mother a child should dream of having.
I want to say a big thank you to my younger ones Damilola, Funmilola, Daniel and Omolola
for being such a wonderful sisters and brother, love you.
I want to show my gratitude to Dr. K.O. Obisesan (400 level coordinator 2014/2015 set), the
man who uses R to perform wonders. I will miss the way he used to advise us and encourage
us and his friendly character. And also, the H.O.D., the Lecturers and the non-academic staffs
of the Department of Statistics University of Ibadan. I want to say a big thank you to the
Lecturers for being fathers and mothers to us in the department, may the Almighty God add
more grease to your elbow and bless you.
And to my friends, Olashinde Oladeji A.K.A. LASH thanks for being there every moment.
My ever sagacious friends in Statistics department 100 level, 200 level, 300 level like
Shogbams, Laolu, Jide, etc. and 400 level like AK pompey, Adewale Tosin, Wale
(Handsomer), Mojeed (MJ), Busola & Olawale Matthew (Angeli), Niniola, Marvelous,
Ajibola Salami (Jiblow), La Moyin, Ajimo Tolani, Khafilat etc. so many names I can‟t
mention but you are all wonder. My fans in the University of Ibadan, my roommates in
Sultan Bello hall, Jagunmolu, Michael, Malik, Pastor Ayobami Familusi, James, Damola and
Ifeoluwa Falanwo, floor mates from A-block to C-block and all my fans in Sultan Bello hall,
and my intelligent 2015 Students‟ Union Electoral commissioner and the Chairman a person
of Mr. Ojelabi [Ag. Deputy Registrar (Students)], Dr. Oladejo [Guidance and counseling] and
staffs of the Students‟ Affairs Division University of Ibadan for your support and
contribution towards the success of this research.
My pastor Rev. Olaoluwa and members of New Covenant Church IITA Centre, NCCF UI,
thank you for the spiritual support in prayer and encouragement with the word of God. And
to Mr. & Mrs. Ilesanmi thank you for being there. Thanks to Mrs. Evbouan.
If I commence on the mentioning of names I will not stop mentioning names. In a nutshell, I,
Eroh Jide Ayansanwo, want to say I love you all but God loves you more and may the
Almighty God grant you peace and bless you more and more in Jesus name (Amen).
iv
ABSTRACT
Lack of students‟ participation on political issues in the University of Ibadan and how in
reality universities play a major role in political education of students, are controversy issues
on campus. Therefore, this study focused on statistical analysis of political consciousness and
involvement of University of Ibadan students.
In this study both primary and secondary data was employed using the questionnaires to
extract information and the students‟ union election result from year 2011 to 2015 to compare
the information being extracted from the questionnaire.
Simple Random Sampling was used for students‟ selection in this study. A total of two
hundred (200) questionnaires were distributed equally among students in the ten halls of
residence including Sultan Bello hall, Kuti hall, Tedder hall, Mellanby hall, Queen Elizabeth
II hall, Nnamdi Azikwe hall, Independence hall, Queen Idia hall and Obafemi Awolowo hall.
Chi-square test, regression analysis, Pearson product moment correlation coefficient,
frequency distribution and charts were as well applied using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences [SPSS package] and Microsoft Excel for the analysis. The Summary of finding
shows that there was less than 40% knowledge and awareness of politics among University of
Ibadan students. It was also shown that less than 40% of the students affirmed that factors
highlighted were actually responsible for causes of unconsciousness and non-involvement in
politics among University of Ibadan students. Over 80% of the students agreed that factors
highlighted were solutions to political unconsciousness and non-involvement in politics
among University of Ibadan students. However, the factor that has to do with CGPA of 3.5
and above which should not be used to rate who is supposed to be a student leader gave
contrary result, that is 58.1% of the students disagreed, while 41.9% agreed.
Thus, the level of political consciousness among University of Ibadan students is less than
30%.
The number of votes cast for all contested positions for that period followed same pattern or
sequence, and that there is no variation in the voting pattern.
Increase in numbers of votes cast for presidential position will lead to number of votes for all
other positions. Based on the findings from the Questionnaires and Students‟ Union election
results, it shows that there is similarity in the knowledge of politics, political consciousness
and involvement in politics, and voting pattern by students of University of Ibadan.
Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended that, Students should endeavor to
have a good result before he/she contest for any political position in the University of Ibadan.
The amount of money being spent on campaign and awareness should be drastically
regulated so as to give an average student the opportunity to contest for a political position.
Political aspirants should be supported based on their integrity, intelligence and strength.
v
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………..………………….. i
DEDICATION…………….…………………………………………………………..……. ii
CERTIFICATION……………………………………………………………..……………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………..………………… iv
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………… v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 29
Table 4.2………………………………………………………………………………..…. 34
Table 4.3 ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 38
Table 4.4 …………………………………………………………….……………………… 41
Table 4.5 ..…………………………………………………………..…………………….. 44
Table 4.6a .…………………………………………………………..……………………. 45
Table 4.6b …………………………………………………………..……………………. 45
Table 4.7a …………………………………………………………..……………………. 46
Table 4.7b …………………………………………………………..……………………. 47
Table 4.8a …………………………………………………………..…………………….. 48
Table 4.8b …………………………………………………………..……………………. 49
Table 4.9a ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 50
Table 4.9b ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 50
Table 4.9c ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 51
Table 4.10a ……………………………………………………………..………………….. 52
Table 4.10b ……………………………………………………………..………………….. 52
Table 4.11 ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 53
Table 4.12 ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 54
Table 4.13 ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 ……………………………………………………………..……………………… 59
Figure 2 ……………………………………………………………..……………………… 60
Figure 3 ……………………………………………………………..……………………… 61
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction to Politics ………………………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 Problem statement……………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.2 History of Unionism………………………………………………………………........... 4
1.3 History of University of Ibadan…………………………………………………………. 4
1.3.1 Faculties……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
1.3.2 Hall of Residence……………………………………………………………..………. 5
1.4 Aim and Objectives……………………………………………………………..………. 6
1.5 Research Questions……………………………………………………………..………. 6
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review……………………………………………………………..………… 8
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Data Collection……………………………………………………………..…………… 19
3.1 Questionnaire Method……………………………………………………………..……. 20
3.2 Sampling Scheme……………………………………………………………..………… 20
3.2.1 Simple Random Sampling…………………………………………………………….. 20
3.2.2 Judgmental Sampling ……………………………………………………………..….. 21
3.3 Analytical Method ……………………………………………………………..………. 21
3.3.1 Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………..…… 21
3.3.1a Frequency Distribution …………………………………………………………..… 21
3.3.1b Percentage Distribution …..………………………………………………………… 22
3.3.1c Percentage Chart ……………………………………………………………..……… 22
3.3.1d Graph and Histogram Chart ………………………………………………………… 22
3.4 Inferential Statistics ……………………………………………………………..……… 23
3.4.1 Chi-square test ……………………………………………………………..…………. 23
3.4.1.1 Pearson‟s Chi-square test ………………………………………………………….. 24
3.4.2 Regression Analysis ……………………………………………………………..…… 24
3.4.2.1 ANOVA for Regression ……………………………………………………………. 25
3.4.3 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient……………………………………. 26
3.5 Test of Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………..……….. 26
3.5.1 Statistical Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………..….. 26
3.5.1.1 Null Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………..……… 26
3.5.1.2 Alternative Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………. 26
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………..…………… 28
4.1 Demographic Data ……………………………………………………………..……… 28
4.2 Knowledge and Awareness of politics among students ……………………………… 30
4.3 Causes of political unconsciousness and non-involvement among students …………. 36
4.4 Solutions to political unconsciousness and non-involvement of students …………… 39
4.5 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………..…… 42
- Research Question 1 …………………………………………………………….. 42
- Research Question 2 …………………………………………………………….. 44
- Research Question 3 …………………………………………………………….. 46
- Research Question 4 …………………………………………………………….. 47
- Research Question 5 …………………………………………………………….. 49
- Research Question 6 …………………………………………………………….. 51
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Summary ……………………………………………………………..………………… 62
5.2 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………..………………. 62
5.3 Recommendation ……………………………………………………………..………. 63
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………..…………….. 65
APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Students‟ Union Election Result (2011-2015)
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO POLITICS
Politics is exciting because people disagree to agree. They disagree about how they should
live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should
society be based on cooperation or conflict and so on? They also disagree about how such
matters should be resolves. How should collective decisions be made? Who should have a
say how much influence should each person have? And so forth. On hearing the word
politics, what usually springs to mind are images of government, politicians and their policies
or more negatively the idea of corruption and dirty tricks? The actual definition seems to
have been obscured and almost lost by such representations and clichés that tend not to
pinpoint the true essence, which defines this thing called politics. The word politics comes
from the Greek word “polis”, meaning the state or community as whole. The concept of the
“polis” was an ideal state and came from the writings of great political thinkers such as Plato
and Aristotle.
In Politics, Aristotle declared that, “Man is by nature a political animal”, which he meant
that, it is only within a political community that human beings can live a “good life”. From
this viewpoint, politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a “just society”, it is
what Aristotle called the “Master Science”.
Consciousness typically refers to the idea of a being that is self-aware. It is a distinction
often reserved for human beings. But a line of political and philosophical inquiry opened up
which explores consciousness in terms of one‟s political state of mind. For Marx,
consciousness describes a person‟s political sense of self. That is, consciousness describes a
person‟s awareness of politics. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being
but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness”. In a political charged
sense, becoming “politically conscious” is often meant to connote that people have awakened
to their political role, their actual identity [MARX].
The reduction of political consciousness and involvement, that is, the reduction of student‟s
participation in politics is not making us have true and genuine leaders. As stated that “youths
are the leaders of tomorrow”. And I began to wonder how youths could be leaders of
tomorrow when they are already facing difficulties in being politically involved due to some
factors or the other. For instance, how can a student who has a lot of books to read for the
session be involved in politics when the time constraint is not sufficient for such student?
How can a student who is from a low social status join the school politics when he/she knows
that there is no resources from anywhere to support his/her campaign? How can students
whose parents instruct not to get involved in school politics disobey the parents? How can
students whose academic performance is epileptic or crawling and also having difficulties in
meeting the school‟s requirement of 3.5 and above CGPA involve themselves in school
politics? And so on.
These things are the major role obstacles in the academic system causing students who has
the dream of being a real leader to be politically not involved. Because, from my own school
of thought, if youths are going to be “leaders of tomorrow” as they say, it is not necessarily
we start ruling the following day but we use the school as a medium to groom ourselves for a
better leadership tomorrow. The institution should be a training ground for those who want to
end up being a politician in the future just has the institution serves the citadel of learning
which has produced competent Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Lecturers, engineers and so on.
Most of these professions listed in their various fields are doing fine in Nigeria but looking at
the political field, there is nothing to talk about in it.
Advantages of Politics
- A more accurate representation of citizens
- Allows individuals to feel that their voice and opinion matters
- Government is more likely to act upon or take notice to an issue supported by large
numbers or masses
- Government may gain support on decisions
- Government may achieve advance solutions or conclusions
- Build trust between citizens and the government
Disadvantages of politics
- Participation in groups may encourage illegal protesting as well as other poor
judgments on participation tactics.
- Individuals may feel that participation is pointless if their opinions are not heard.
- Participation in groups may also be dominated by an individual or a fraction of the
group
- Strong opposition may be formed if officials garner the support of citizens tardily,
which may lead to alienation and hostility (breaking any previous relationship
between citizens and the government that was formerly built).
1.1 Problem Statement
- Lack of students‟ participation on political issues in the University of Ibadan and how
in reality universities play a role in political education of students.
- The political sector on campus is regarded as being important because of its capacity
to promote the development of different activities in the institution and not only in the
institutions but in every nation.
1.2 History of Unionism
Student unionism began in 1925 with the emergence of West African Student Union
[WASU] and was partly pioneered by some Nigerian students in London. They fought the
colonial masters for the rights of Africans. National union of Nigerian Students [NUNS]
inherited the same idealism from WASU and the student union matched on as a platform
of charge and of informed activism. It later became National Association of Nigeria
Student [NANS] in 1980.
1.3 History of University of Ibadan
The origin of the university is in Yaba College, founded in 1932 in Yaba, Lagos as the
first tertiary educational institute in Nigeria. Yaba College was transferred to Ibadan,
becoming the University College of Ibadan, in 1948. The University was founded on its
own site on 17 November 1948. In late 1963, on the university playing-fields, with a
celebration marked by talking drums, the Rt. Hon. Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, first
Prime Minister of independent Nigeria, became the first Chancellor of its independent
university. The first Nigerian Vice chancellor of the university was Kenneth Dike, after
whom the University of Ibadan‟s library is named.
1.3.1 Faculties
Agriculture and Forestry, Arts, Basic Medical sciences, Clinical sciences, Dentistry,
Education, Law, Pharmacy, Public Health, Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology,
Veterinary Medicine, School of Business Studies.
1.3.2 Hall of Residence
The university is primarily residential with magnificent halls of residence for male and
female students. There is provision for the accommodation of post-graduate students. The
hall also serve has the political constituency or party for every aspirant who wants to
participate in politics at the student union level. There are Internet Cafes, Knowledge
Hubs, Cafeterias, Laundry Centre, Mini Marts, Press Boards, Common-rooms, Gymnasia
(in some halls), Kitchenettes; e.t.c.There is impressive water and electricity supply.
Electricity supply is also augmented by the inverter system. Football, snookers and table
tennis are sports majorly played and watched by students. The halls of residence are semi-
autonomous. Each hall of residence has a Management Committee, which is responsible
for matters of general policy for the social, cultural and intellectual activities of the hall.
The management Committee is given powers to arrange its own social, cultural and
intellectual activities designed to preserve, develop and enrich the traditions of the hall
generally interesting and worthwhile. The management Committee consists of the hall
Master/Mistress, the hall Warden and Assistant Wardens, the hall Supervisor, Porters and
the Hall Executives, which consists of students who are elected every session by the
students of each hall to handle internal student matters, as well as act as an intermediary
between the hall administration and the generality of students. Accommodation in the
halls ranges from one to four per room. The halls are listed below:
Sultan Bello Hall, Mellanby Hall, Queen Elizabeth II Hall, Tedder Hall, Kuti Hall, Queen
Idia Hall, Obafemi Awolowo Hall, Nnamdi Azikwe Hall, Independence Hall, Tafawa
Balewa Hall, Alexander Brown Hall, Abdulsalam Abubakar Hall.
1.4 Aim and Objectives
The main aim of this study is to know the causes and how we can proffer solution to
political unconsciousness and non-involvement of university of Ibadan students. While
the Objectives of this Study are:
To determine the level of political consciousness of students.
To determine the relationship between knowledge about politics and political
consciousness of students.
To examine the relationship between knowledge about politics and causes of political
unconsciousness of students.
To determine how political consciousness affects the solutions to political
unconsciousness of students.
To determine the effect of demographic variables on level of knowledge about
politics.
To determine the effect of demographic variables on solutions to political
unconsciousness of students.
1.5 Research Questions
What is the level of political consciousness of students?
What is the relationship between knowledge about politics and political consciousness
of students?
What is the relationship between knowledge about politics and causes of political
unconsciousness of students?
Does political unconsciousness affects the solutions to political unconsciousness of
students?
What are the effects of demographic variables on level of knowledge about politics?
What are the effects of demographic variables on solutions to the political
unconsciousness of students?
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Almond and Verba (1963): This view is supported by these authors in their five nations
study where they concluded that among all the variables they considered, education is
regarded as the greatest variable of political reform in any country.
Undoubtedly, many agents of political education would have influenced university students
before and by the time they are in the university. Schooling itself has been known to function
as an ideological vehicle for political socialization but the more extensive an individual‟s
education is, the more likely he is to have more political information to possess a wide range
of opinions on political matters and to engage in political discussion with a wide range of
people and to feel a greater ability to influence political affairs (Almond and Verba, 1963). It
has been argued that individual political behaviour and thoughts are consequences of the
environmental influences, i.e. those influences directly relating to political influences as well
as those forming the general character (Mezey 1975).
The university now reports to be the dominant model and central instrument of political
education, surpassing even the traditional bond of the family. This is the view of sociologists
and political scientists have continually looked for reasons why people participate in politics.
Therefore, one can conclude that university students‟ socialization involves all kinds of
learning which students are exposed to while they are in the university.
If one agrees with Milbrath (1971) that the surest single predictor of political involvement is
the number of years of formal education, one can safely arrive at the conclusion that the
university certainly widens the scope of students‟ acquaintance and motivates their political
knowledge and involvement. The university system is integrally linked to other parts of the
education system namely: primary and secondary. The character of students flows from one
level of the system to another. The university system is a key arena for ideological production
and for political socialization. The university system is conceptualised as straddling all these
domains, constituencies and sets of interests. Education, because it is capable of developing
scarce skills and raising consciousness, holds out particular a promise for the state in relation
to its need to control society and the economy. At the same time, education poses a threat to
prevailing relations of authority, since education is also capable of stimulating independence
which is usually quite vocal in various matters.
The Nigeria university students also have their own local news carriers in form of what is
referred to as „campus journalism‟. University students often place a great reliance on
university media as channels of information. The mass media is important because according
to Rush and Althoff (1971) not only are more people involved in the communication system
but they are reached by the same channels and so the information likely to reach them will be
more uniform. For instance, according to Hamad et al. (2001) students and the mass media
were instrumental in bringing about political reforms in Indonesia in 1990. Political
education could be shaped by what is transmitted through the official curriculum. This may
be true especially in primary and secondary schools where civics is taught as a subject.
Unions exist to represent the interests of students. Students‟ unionism arose out of the
recognition that students should be given some protection and prevented from being exploited
unduly either by government or by the university. It also sets out to improve the ability of its
members to influence decisions, share in decision making and exchange views and ideas with
the management. A student union government is like a typical government as it has the
Senate and also observes legislative procedures. The student union is always the first
platform where students practice political roles. The Nigerian students‟ unions are highly
politicised bodies and often serve as a training ground for indoctrination, activism and for
aspiring politicians. In the Nigerian university the union is headed by the Union executive. It
is this executive that dictates the pace of policy and political beliefs of students. The
executive could therefore be described as an elitist group that controls all the activities of the
university students. It is therefore not surprising that they are the second prominent agents of
political education of students. The unions organize several activities for the enlightenment of
students. In Nigeria they are very active politically powerful and they comment on all aspects
of governance in the university, in the nation and in the international scene. The students‟
unions facilitate student‟s activities.
The next groups to students union are other groups within the university. The study has a
limitation here as it did not identify these other groups. It is however safe to say that these
groups could be different peer groups, religious associations, faculty associations. This
supports the fact that the peer group has been identified as one of several factors that
influences attitude formation, and relations with friends of the same age also plays a role in
forming one‟s identity (Ivor Morrish in St. Vembrianto, 1990).
Surprisingly, the university lecturers tag behind others and are regarded as the number four
political socialiser of university students. The university lecturers are known for their
political activism as strong supporters for students‟ course. Many times, the students in
league with the university lecturers have joined the civil society in voicing out their opinions
and resisting government policies. Majority of citizens believed that students acquired their
activism through tutelage of their lecturers. Some of the university lecturers are themselves
activists and their union called Academic Staff of University Unions (ASUU) have often
been regarded as leftist and always in partnership with the students union. It is surprising
therefore that their political influence on students is marginal.
Akintoye, et al. (1973 and 1974): Evidences and observations abound in the literature that
student‟s activism predates independence in Nigeria more particularly with the establishment
of Yaba Higher College, University College of lbadan and with the influence of some
Nigerian students who had opportunity of studying abroad.
It has also been noted that the tempo of activism increased tremendously at the post-
independence period following the establishment of more universities in the country which
has been sustained (Anise, 1979). Unfortunately, there has always been a tendency to refer to
these activities as students “unrest”. Whatever name is called several factors have been
responsible for the so called students‟ unrest. Internal factors range from dissatisfaction with
university policies, rules and regulations, representations on students board and committees
of council and senate and even representations on council and senate (Ojo, 1995).
Other reasons are lack of communication and consultations between students and authorities
in a variety of matters (Ajayi, 1990). An external/internal factor is students‟ inability to
satisfy occupational interest and the deep fear and uncertainty of lack of job opportunities
after graduation often cause frustrations and could lead to “unrest” at the slightest
provocation (Olugbade, 1990). External factors leading to students‟ unrest are mainly
concerned with national and international policies. Examples are the Structural Adjustment
Programme of the past military regime whereby they partnered with National Labour Council
(NLC) to form a strong resistance thereby pressurizing government to a retreat, dialogue or
compromise.
Other issues are the controversial 1963 census, the 1965 Western Regional Election, the
introduction of the National Youths Service Scheme (NYSS) into Nigerian university system,
the abortive coup of February 13, 1976 in which the progressive Head of State General
Murtala Mohammed was killed, the annulment of June 12, 1993 presidential election won by
M.K.O Abiola which was believed to be the fairest of all elections. This eventually led the
then military Head of State General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida to step aside as was the
case in Indonesia when university students were instrumental to the complaint that led to the
resignation of Soeharto in 1998 after 32 years in power (Hamad et al., 2001). Additionally,
Nigerian students always protest increase in petroleum products which could be compared to
Indonesia experience when the students found that the prices of gasoline and transportation
fares had been increased they demanded a reduction and government complied. Their actions
yielded results as government acted promptly and positively to the demand to lower public
bus fares and the state oil company was compelled to lower price of gasoline (Bachtair, 1968;
Olugbade, 1990).
The Nigerian students are conversant with international politics. For instance, the Nigerian
students in partnership with some organisations supported Nigerian and South African blacks
against apartheid regime of South Africa and the killings in Soweto just like some students in
the United States used their consuming powers as a political tactic on campus around the
country in return to a strategy successfully employed in the civil right movement in the 1960s
and in efforts to end apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s (Rucker, 2005; Longo and Meyer,
2006).
Also in 1959 the Nigerian students demonstrated against the Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact,
until the pact was abrogated. These examples could be compared with the university; the
college becomes a predominant model and the central instrument of their political education.
University students over the years have been known to have played significant role in
transformation or political systems (Coleman 1963; Mcclintock and Turner, 1963). They both
argued that education is a crucial agent of socialization and that the school exerts influence
on the individual as well as on the social and political system. If this is true, then one can
justify the literature that supports the fact that the school is the major agent of students‟
political education.
M.A. Adelabu and A.O. Akinsolu, 6 January, 2009: The higher institutions are known for
where ideologies are formed. They also serve as instruments of motivating students. Tertiary
education in particular is fundamental to the construction of knowledge and knowledge itself
has become a vital factor for political education. Nigerian students are politically active and
have in no small measure influenced policies within their universities and in the nation as a
whole. Nigerian universities have produced a lot of activists that are presently influencing the
Nigerian political landscape. These activists have been known to have developed their
political ideologies and activism while in the university. The major objective of this study is
to determine whether in reality universities play a role in political education of students.
A number of factors, such as, curriculum, media, peer influence and lecturers‟ influence are
also used to determine the agents of political socialization of the students within the
university. The study also highlighted which of the agents seem to have the greatest impact
on the students‟ political education within the university. The study design is survey research
using a questionnaire tagged “Political Education of Students in the University” (PESUQ).
The study population is Obafemi Awolowo University. The university is selected because it
is deemed to be one of the most politically active among Nigerian universities. The study
sample is 1,000 students. 536 new students and 464 old students were selected through a
disproportionate stratified random sampling. The questionnaire is divided into two sections.
The first section is the personal data of students while the second section addresses students‟
agents of political education.
The study was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics; such as T-test and chi-
square, mean, frequency distribution to test relationships, using the SPSS package. Findings
revealed that the students are politically influenced in the university system. However, more
old than new are influenced. In the same to the male students are more politically socialised
than female. It was also found that the main agents of students‟ political education are the
curriculum, the students union and the lecturers.
Concept of Education
Education concerns the individual and society. It is the act of systematic development or
training of the mind, capabilities or character through instruction or study. Education varies
as widely in its forms, philosophy, contents, and methods as there are different societies in
the world.
Education is a life-long process that has interpretation in purpose, type and level. It is a
means of socializing people into the community, for upholding customs and traditions as well
as for the modification or changing of same in conformity with existing ideologies,
ideological expansion or reformation.
Education is an instrument for effecting national development. Education can be defined as
production and reproduction of knowledge of people‟s way of life (i.e, their culture) with the
aim of preserving and maintaining the social structure that will be able to guarantee social
order and changes in the society.
Oni (1978) drives this point home further when he stated that education is one of the basic
means of human and cultural self-realization as well as a means of realizing the productive
power of a nation. The very concept of development according to him implies the constant
improvement in the quality of life in a nation through the improvement of the productive
capabilities of individuals. Education is one of the decisive tools for achieving this.
Meaning of Governance
Governance refers to the means by which higher educational (also tertiary or post-secondary)
institutions are formally organized and managed, though often there is a distinction between
definitions of management and governance. Simply, university governance is the way in
which universities are operated. Governing structures for higher education are highly
differentiated throughout the world.
Altbach (2005) noted that the different models for higher education throughout the world do
share a common heritage. Coldrake, Stedman and Little (2003) also discuss the shared
traditions and history of higher education worldwide. Internationally, tertiary educations are
governed by differentiated structures of management.
The concept of governance for university education refers to the internal structure,
organization and management of autonomous institutions. The organization of internal
governance is generally composed of governing board, the university chief executive with a
team of administrative chancellors and staff, faculty senate, academic deans, departmental
heads and usually some form of organization for student representation.
Kezar and Eckel (2004) defined governance at the macro-level of policy decision making.
Both suggest that governance is a multi-level concept, including several different bodies and
processes with different decision-making functions. Generally, institutions are recognized as
autonomous actors with varying degrees of interdependence and commitments to the external
stakeholders, state and national government.
It becomes necessary at this point to examine the issue of student activism and
administration. It is an incontrovertible fact that students are at the heart of all higher
education activities. They play a critical role in enhancing the smooth functioning of an
institution, hence proper management of student matters is a necessary condition for the
stability of any institution.
In this unit, there is need for a re-engineering of management of student affairs, such that the
management posture will be geared towards meeting the needs of the students and nipping
problems in the bud.
Student’s political participation
Education has long been regarded the seminal variable in predicting political participation in
the United States. Indeed, individuals with higher levels of schooling are more likely than
their less educated peers to report greater attention to and interest in politics, to follow the
news, to possess political information and knowledge and to express a sense of civic duty
(Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980).
This relationship has rich roots in the field of political behavior dating back to some of the
earliest studies on political activity (Woodward & Roper, 1950) and is believed to emerge
because schooling provides: the knowledge, motivation, and skills to understand and politic
matters (Converse, 1988); practice in seeking information and in thinking conceptually and
abstractly (Feldman & Newcomb, 1960; Hyman, Wright & Reed, 1975); and valuable
personal relationships and social connections (Nie, Junn & Stehlik-Barry, 1996; Straits, 1990;
Timpone, 1998).
The mainstream second wave of the Women‟s Movement was characterized by a particular
type of singular consciousness, in which “sex was seen as the most fundamental axis of social
structure and the most fundamental source of oppression”(Buechler,1990,p.114). For women
whose gender political consciousness is singular, “men or the system of sex roles are the
fundamental enemy, and gender-based forms of resistance are the dominant strategy. The
basic principle of mobilization and struggle involves female solidarity across all other groups
and identities (p. 113). With few exceptions (Henley, Meng, Brian, McCarthy, & Sockloskie,
1998; King, 2003; Patterson, Cameron, & Lalonde, 1996; Simoni, Henley & Christie, 1999),
the bulk of social psychological research has adopted such a singular approach to
conceptualizing and measuring women‟s political consciousness.
The typical starting point is the model put forth by Gurin and her colleagues, in which
political consciousness is defined as “a set of political beliefs and action orientations arising
out of awareness of similarity” (Gurin, Miller, & Gurin, 1980, p. 30, emphasis added).
According to this perspective, gendered political consciousness is a consequence of
identification with the group women and dissatisfaction with the status of that in group
relative to the relevant out group, men.
Three dimensions of political consciousness are identified:
Illegitimacy, which is the perception of illegitimately unequal status relations between
the in group and a relevant out group.
Collective discontent, which is dissatisfaction with these unequal status relations.
And collective action orientation, which is support for collective efforts to improve
the in groups illegitimately low status relative to the relevant out group.
Most commonly, these three dimensions of political consciousness have been studied along a
single isolated dimension of social identity often race, class, gender, or sexual orientation
with all others held constant, although there are exceptions to this (Henley et al., 1998; King,
2003).
Voting Behavior among College Students
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental American rights, and in the 2008
presidential election the majority of Americans exercised this right and cast a ballot at the
polls. Indeed, approximately 131 million Americans voted in the 2008 Presidential election;
this represents 64% of those eligible to vote, the highest voter turnout since the 1960‟s
(McDonald, 2008). Turnout among young voters was no exception; the rate of voting among
youth was one of the highest ever recorded. According to estimates from the Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University,
half 51% of Americans between ages 18-29 cast votes in the 2008 election (Kirby &
Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2009). Although studies have shown that people with higher levels of
education have higher rates of political participation (Burden, 2009), little is known about
voting behavior among students currently in college.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 DATA COLLECTION
Data used in research originally obtained through the direct efforts of the researcher through
surveys, interviews and direct observation. Primary data is more costly to obtain than
secondary data, which is obtained through published sources, but it is also more current and
more relevant to the research project. It is required to answer a variety of questions in many
spheres of life individuals, homes, government, institutions and establishment e.t.c.
Data collected is the process of gathering numeric information in order to draw inferences
from it.
Types of data
There are two types of data
Primary data
Secondary data
In this study both primary and secondary data was employed using the questionnaire to
extract information and the students‟ union election result from year 2011 to 2015 to compare
the information being extracted from the questionnaire.
Primary data by contrast, are collected by the investigator conducting the research.
Advantages of Primary data
1. Basic data
2. Unbiased information
3. Original data and most reliable form of data
4. Data direct from the population to make inference on
Disadvantages of Primary Data
1. Large volume of data
2. Huge volume of population
3. Time consuming
4. Direct and personal intervention has to be there in order to avoid false results
5. Usually expensive
6. Researcher has to be skilled and expert
Secondary data is collected by someone other than the user. Sources of secondary data
include census, organizational records and data collected through qualitative methodologies
or qualitative research.
Advantages of secondary data
1. Saves time that would otherwise be spent collecting data and particularly in case of
quantitative data
2. Secondary data can adequately capture past change and/or development.
3. Biased information
Disadvantages of secondary data
1. Data collected from a source might not be accurate
2. Usually less expensive
3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD
Questionnaires are administered to undergraduates in the halls of residence from 200-600
level cutting across all faculties constituted in the hall, excluding the 2014/2015 students
admitted and the post graduate halls like Tafawa Balewa and Abdulsalam Abubakar.
3.2 SAMPLING SCHEME
Sampling is the selection of part of the population under study; whereby inferences made
about the sample is true of the total population.
3.2.1 Simple Random Sampling is used in this present study, because of its simplicity and
flexibility. A total of two hundred (200) questionnaires were distributed equally among
students in the ten halls of residence excluding the post-graduate halls like Abdulsalam
Abubakar and Tafawa Balewa because students residing there are either masters or post-
graduate students. That is, a proportion was given out to each hall.
3.2.2 Judgmental Sampling is used in this present study. I relied on my own judgment
when choosing members of population from each hall of residence to participate in the study.
The two hundred (200) questionnaires were distributed into ten (10) different halls which
twenty (20) questionnaires were allocated to each hall. I stayed at the entrance of each hall
choosing students and giving them the questionnaires to administer based on my own
judgment so far they are within the observation range.
3.3 ANALYTICAL METHOD
3.3.1 Descriptive Statistics measures were used in analyzing the survey; some of the
statistical tools used will be introduced and explained as used below:
3.3.1a Frequency distribution is a table that displays the frequency of various outcomes in
a sample. The table contains the frequency or count of the occurrences of values within the
demographic factors, knowledge and awareness about politics, level of political
consciousness and involvement, causes of political unconsciousness and non-involvement
among students and solutions to the political unconsciousness and non-involvement of
students.
A Univariate frequency table is a single variable. The frequency of each response to a survey
question is depicted. The table below shows the Univariate frequency table.
Demographic factors Variables Frequency %
Sex Male
Female
133
67
66.5
33.5
Frequency distribution shows a summarized grouping of data divided into mutually exclusive
ranges and occurrences. It is used to analyse the results of the students‟ union election. And
some of the graphs and charts which are used with frequency distribution are bar chart, line
chart, and histogram. And frequency distribution is used in this project for both qualitative
and quantitative data.
3.3.1b Percentage Distribution
Like the frequency distribution, percentage distribution can be used to present data in a
condensed manner. And can also be called a relative-frequency distribution.
Percentage distribution is used to show the relative frequency rather than the actual counts.
For each category (individual or group) it shows the ratio of occurrences in that group to the
total number of occurrences recorded.
Percentage was used from section A – E and also in the research questions for each category
to show the ratio of occurrences in that group to the total number of occurrences recorded.
Percentage was used to measure the percentage of total number of voters to the number of
eligible voters per halls of residence and per year (2011 - 2015) in the University of Ibadan.
3.3.1c Percentage chart is a graphic display of percentage distribution. Percentage chart
was used to show the percentage of total number of voters to the number of eligible voters
per halls of residence and per year (2011 - 2015) in the University of Ibadan.
3.3.1d Graph and Histogram chart shows the voting pattern of various positions contested
across the residential halls by students at University of Ibadan and also to show the trend of
votes cast by students at university of Ibadan respectively.
3.4 INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
3.4.1 Chi-Square Test
The chi-square test as used in this survey is used to compute the differences between actual
and expected values (or to be precise the sum of squares of the differences) and it is used to
assign a probability value to that number depending on the size of the difference and the
number of rows and columns of the crosstab tables of this research work.
If the probability value computed by the chi-square test is very small, differences
between actual and expected values are judged to be significant and therefore one
concludes that the assumption of independence is invalid and there must be a relation
between the variables. The error one commit by ejecting the independent assumption
is given by this probability value.
If the probability value computed by the chi-square test is very large, differences
between actual and expected values are judged to be non-significant and therefore one
do not reject the assumption of independent, i.e, it is likely that the variables are
indeed independent.
Chi-square test is used in this study, to determine:
The knowledge and awareness of politics among students.
The causes of political unconsciousness and non-involvement among students.
The solutions to political unconsciousness and non-involvement of students.
In research question one chi-square is used to analyse the level of political
consciousness of students.
Chi-square is used in research question two to show the relationship between
knowledge about politics and political consciousness among students and the
relationship between knowledge about politics and level of involvement in politics
among students.
Chi-square is used in research question three, to show the relationship between
knowledge about politics and causes of political unconsciousness among students.
In research question five, Chi-square is used to determine the relationship between
sex and knowledge about politics among students and the relationship between
religion and knowledge about politics among students.
3.4.1.1 Pearson's Chi-squared test is a statistical test applied to sets of categorical data to
evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance. It is
suitable for unpaired data from large samples. It is the most widely used of many chi-squared
tests (Yates, likelihood ratio, portmanteau test in time series, e.t.c.).
Pearson‟s‟ Chi-square test is used to test the null hypothesis stating that the frequency
distribution of the objectives addressing the sections A-E observed in the sample is consistent
with a particular theoretical distribution. The objectives considered are mutually exclusive
and have total probability.
3.4.2 Regression Analysis
In statistics, regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationship among
variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables, when
the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent
variable(s). Regression analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting. It is also used
to understand which among the independent variables are related to the dependent variable,
and to explore the forms of these relationships.
3.4.2.1 ANOVA for Regression
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) consists of calculations that provide information about levels
of variability within a regression model and form a basis for tests of significance.
A One-Way Analysis of Variance is a way to test the equality of three or more means at one
time by using variances.
Assumptions
The populations from which the samples were obtained must be normally or
approximately normally distributed.
The samples must be independent.
The variances of the populations must be equal
One way ANOVA regression is used to analysis the significant difference across years of
number of votes cast by students of various positions contested at the University of Ibadan. It
shows how the position of president to public relation officer was regressed. Regression
analysis is used to show the joint contributions of political consciousness factors to the
prediction of solutions to the political unconsciousness of students. Also, regression analysis
is used to show the relative contributions of political consciousness factors to the prediction
of solutions to the political unconsciousness of students in research question four.
Regression analysis is used to show the joint contributions of demographic factors to the
prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of students and the relative contributions
of political consciousness factors to the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of
students in research question six.
3.4.3 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient
In statistics, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (sometimes referred to as
the PPMCC or PCC or Pearson's r) is a measure of the linear correlation between two
variables X and Y, giving a value between +1 and −1 inclusive, where 1 is total positive
correlation, 0 is no correlation, and −1 is total negative correlation. It is widely used in the
sciences as a measure of the degree of linear dependence between two variables.
Pearson product moment correlation is used to analyse the relationship between numbers of
vote cast for all positions contested by students at University of Ibadan.
3.5 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS
In practice we are usually called upon to make decisions about the population on the basis of
sample information. Such decision is called statistical decision.
3.5.1 STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS
In the process of decision making, it is necessary to make assumptions or guesses about the
population involved. These assumptions which may or may not be true are called statistical
hypothesis. There are two types of hypothesis: Null hypothesis and Alternative hypothesis.
3.5.1.1 Null Hypothesis states that, there is no significance between two or more means, that
is, the two is the same. It is the statement or phenomenon to be test. It is commonly denoted
H0.
3.5.1.2 Alternative hypothesis states that, there is significant difference between two or
more means, that is, it a hypothesis set up to nullify the null hypothesis if there is enough
evidence to do so. It is commonly denoted as H1.
All the statistical tools mentioned and explained above were used to measure and compare
the responses of respondents from the questionnaires and the students‟ union election results
from year 2011 to 2015 in the chapter four of this research work.
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is divided into two parts. Part one presents the results based on two hundred
(200) students sampled from the ten undergraduate halls of residence in the University of
Ibadan in order to determine the level of political consciousness, knowledge, causes of
political unconsciousness and solution to political unconsciousness and non-involvement
among students of University of Ibadan. Part two presents the analysis of election results of
Student Union positions in the twelve halls of residence at University of Ibadan.
Part One
4.1 Demographic Data
Table 4.1 below shows 26 (13.0%) of the students were from Agricultural science and
forestry faculty, 17 (8.5%) of them were from Arts faculty, 11 (5.5%) were from Basic
medical sciences faculty, 27 (13.5%) were from Clinical sciences faculty, only 1 (0.5%) from
college of medicine, 5 (2.5%) from Dentistry faculty, 17 (8.5%) were from Education faculty,
18 (9.0%) were from Law faculty, 2 (1.0%) were from Pharmacy faculty, 36 (18%) were
from Sciences faculty, 13 (6.5%) were from Social sciences faculty, 24 (12%) were from
Technology faculty, while 3 (1.5%) were from Veterinary medicine faculty. Also, 133
(66.5%) were male, while 67 (33.5%) were females. Further, 70 (35.0%) of the students
were in 200 level, 60 (30%) in 300 level, 49 (24.5%) in 400 level, 18 (9.0%) of them in 500
level, while 3 (1.5%) were in 600 level. Additionally, 96 (48.0%) of the students were in the
age range of 16 – 20 years, 82 (41.0%) belong to the age range of 21 – 24 years, 17 (8.5%)
belong to the age range of 25 – 29 years, while 5 (2.5%) of them belong to the age of ≥ 30
years.
Additionally, 170 (85.0%) of the students are Christians, 25 (12.5%) were Muslims, only 1
(0.5%) is traditional worshipper, while 4 (2%) indicated that they had no religion.
Finally, majority 162 (81.0%) of the students were from Yoruba tribe, 7 (3.5%) were from
Edo, 1 (0.5%) each from Efik and Hausa tribe respectively, 2 (1%) were from Ibibio tribe, 23
(11.5%) were from Igbo tribe, while 4 (2%) of them were from Urhobo tribe.
Table 4.1 Distribution of Demographic Characteristics of respondents
Demographic factors Frequency %
Faculty
Agricultural science and forestry 26 13.0
Arts 17 8.5
Basic medical sciences 11 5.5
Clinical sciences 27 13.5
College of medicine 1 0.5
Dentistry 5 2.5
Education 17 8.5
Law 18 9.0
Pharmacy 2 1.0
Sciences 36 18.0
Social science 13 6.5
Technology 24 12.0
Veterinary medicine 3 1.5
Sex Male 133 66.5
Female 67 33.5
Level of study
200 70 35.0
300 60 30.0
400 49 24.5
500 18 9.0
600 3 1.5
Age
16 – 20 yrs 96 48.0
21 – 24 yrs 82 41.0
25 – 29 yrs 17 8.5
≥ 30 years 5 2.5
Table 4.1 cont’d
Demographic factors Frequency %
Religion
Christianity 170 85.0
Islam 25 12.5
Traditional 1 0.5
No religion 4 2.0
Tribe
Edo 7 3.5
Efik 1 0.5
Hausa 1 0.5
Ibibio 2 1.0
Igbo 23 11.5
Urhobo 4 2.0
Yoruba 162 81.0
Total 200 100
4.2 Knowledge and awareness of politics among students
Table 4.2 below shows that 5.5% of the students indicated that their view about politics in UI
was excellent, 15.5% of them indicated that their view about politics in UI was very good,
64.5% of them indicated that their view about politics in UI was average, 9.5% of them
indicated that their view about politics in UI was not good, while 5% of them indicated that
their view about politics in UI was bad. The result indicated that students who had average to
excellent view about politics in UI were significantly higher than those that have bad or not
good view about politics in UI (χ2=257.41, df=4; p<.01).
Also, 1% of the students indicated that their view about politics in Nigeria was excellent,
10% of them indicated that their view about politics in Nigeria was very good, 34.5% of them
indicated that their view about politics in Nigeria was average, 38.5% of them indicated that
their view about politics in Nigeria was not good, while 16% of them indicated that their
view about politics in Nigeria was bad. The result indicated that students who had average to
excellent view about politics in Nigeria were significantly higher than those that have bad or
not good view about politics in Nigeria (χ2=102.95, df=4; p<.01).
Additionally, 19.5% of the students indicated that Unionism is being practiced in UI, 44.5%
of them indicated that Unionism is not being practiced in UI, while 36.0% indicated that they
are not sure if Unionism is being practiced in UI. The result indicated that students who
practice Unionism in UI were significantly lower than those that are not practicing Unionism
in UI (χ2=19.29, df=2; p<.01).
Further, 30.5% of the students indicated that we really practice democracy in Nigeria, 49.5%
of them indicated that we do not we really practice democracy in Nigeria, while 20.0%
indicated that they were not sure if we really practice democracy in Nigeria. The result
indicated that students who indicated that we really practice democracy in Nigeria were
significantly lower than those who do not really practice democracy in Nigeria (χ2=29.77,
df=2; p<.01).
Also, 48.0% of the students indicated that there is god-fatherism in the University of Ibadan
politics unlike politics in Nigeria, 16.5% of them indicated that there is none, while 35.5%
indicated that they were not sure. The result indicated that students who indicated that there
is god-fatherism in the University of Ibadan politics were significantly higher than those who
do not (χ2=30.27, df=2; p<.01).
Additionally, 20.0% of the students indicated that they think youths are still the leaders of
tomorrow, 50.5% of them indicated that they do not think youths are still the leader of
tomorrow, while 29.5% indicated that they were not sure if youths are still the leader of
tomorrow. The result indicated that students who indicated that they think youths are still the
leaders of tomorrow were significantly lower than those who do not (χ2=29.23, df=2; p<.01).
Also, 16.5% of the students indicated that they did not think youths are still the leaders of
tomorrow because of age factor, 24.5% of them ascribe it to financial factor, 9% of them
indicated that most youths are dependant, 14.5% of them indicated corruption among youth
as a factor, 30% of them indicated hierarchy in party structure as a factor, while 5.5% of them
indicated that youths have no foresight. The result indicated a significant effect on factors
responsible for youths not being able to be leaders of tomorrow (χ2=51.28, df=5; p<.01).
And also, 64% of the students indicated integrity, intelligence and strength as characteristics
an aspiring student leader must possess, 5% of them indicated popularity, wealth and CGPA
as characteristics an aspiring student leader must possess, 9% of them indicated brilliance,
CGPA and integrity as characteristics an aspiring student leader must possess, while 22% of
them indicated loyalty, respect and humility as characteristics an aspiring student leader must
possess. The result indicated a significant effect of qualities student leader must possess
(χ2=174.88, df=3; p<.01).
Finally, about 12% of the students thought Manifesto is the best method to be put into
practice to test an aspirant before appointing them into the university of Ibadan political
offices, 14.5% of the students thought debate should be the best method, 3.5% thought media
publicity should be the best method, 6% thought meeting people one-on-one should be the
method, 5% thought first to start awareness should be the best method, 19% manifesto and
debate is the best method, 2% thought manifesto and media publicity is the best method,
2.5% thought manifesto and meeting people one-on-one is the method is the best method, 1%
thought manifesto and first to start awareness is the best method, 1.5% thought debate and
media publicity is the best method, 1% thought debate and social network publicity is the best
method, 5% thought debate and meeting people one-on-one is the best method, 0.5% thought
debate and first to start awareness is the best method, 0.5% thought media publicity and
social network publicity is the best method, 1.5% thought media publicity and first to start
awareness is the best method, 14% thought manifesto, debate and media publicity is the best
method, 1.5% thought manifesto, debate and meeting people one-on-one is the best method,
3% thought manifesto, social network and meeting people one-on-one is the best method,
0.5% thought debate, media publicity and meeting people one-on-one is the method, 2.5%
thought manifesto, debate, media publicity and meeting people one-on-one is best method,
while about 1.5% of the students indicated that, manifesto, debate, media publicity, social
network publicity, meeting people one-on-one and first to start awareness is the best method
to be put into practice to test an aspirant before appointing them into the University of Ibadan
political offices. The result indicated a significant effect of students‟ thought in the best
method to be practiced to test an aspirant before appointment into political offices in the
University of Ibadan (χ2=261.560, df=21; p<.01).
Table 4.2: Knowledge and awareness of politics among students
S/N Items Freq % Df Χ2
1 What is your view about politics in the University of Ibadan?
Excellent 11 5.5
Very good 31 15.5
Average 129 64.5 4 257.41*
Not good 19 9.5
Bad 10 5.0
2 What is your view about politics in Nigeria?
Excellent 2 1.0
Very good 20 10.0
Average 69 34.5 4 102.95*
Not good 77 38.5
Bad 32 16.0
3 Are we really practicing Unionism in the University of Ibadan?
Yes 39 19.5
No 89 44.5
Not sure 72 36.0 2 19.29*
4 Are we really practicing democracy in Nigeria?
Yes 61 30.5
No 99 49.5
Not sure 40 20.0 2 29.77*
5 Is there god-fatherism in the University of Ibadan politics unlike politics in
Nigeria?
Yes 96 48.0
No 33 16.5
Not sure 71 35.5 2 30.27*
6 With the way Nigeria’s politics is being run do you think youths are still the
leaders of tomorrow?
Yes 40 20.0
No 101 50.5
Not sure 59 29.5 2 29.23*
7 If No, why?
Age factor 33 16.5
Financial factor 49 24.5
most youths are dependant 18 9.0 5 51.28*
corruption among youth 29 14.5
Hierarchy in party structure 60 30.0
Youths have no foresight 11 5.5
8 What are the characteristics an aspiring student leader must possess?
Integrity, Intelligence & Strength 128 64.0
popularity, wealth & CGPA 10 5.0
Brilliance, CGPA & integrity 18 9.0 3 174.88*
Loyalty, Respect & Humility 44 22.0
S/N Items Freq % Df Χ2
9 Which of these do you think is the best method to be put into practice to test
an aspirant before appointing them into the University of Ibadan Political
offices?
Manifesto 24 12.0
Debate 29 14.5
Media Publicity 7 3.5 21 261.560*
Meeting people one-on-one
First to start awareness
Manifesto & Debate
Manifesto & Media publicity
Manifesto & Meeting people one-on-one
Manifesto & First to start awareness
Debate & Media publicity
Debate & Social network publicity
Debate & Meeting people one-on-one
Debate & First to start awareness
Media publicity & Social network publicity
Media publicity & First to start awareness
Manifesto, Debate & Media publicity
Manifesto, Media publicity & Meeting
people
Manifesto, Social network publicity &
Meeting people
Manifesto, meeting people one-on-one &
First to start awareness
Debate, Media publicity & Meeting people
one-on-one
Manifesto, Debate, Media publicity &
Meeting people one-on-one
All of above
12
10
38
4
5
2
3
2
10
1
1
3
28
3
3
6
1
5
3
6.0
5.0
19.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
5.0
0.5
0.5
1.5
14.0
1.5
1.5
3.0
0.5
2.5
1.5
4.3 Causes of political unconsciousness and non-involvement among students
Table 4.3 below shows that 19.5% of the students affirmed that exorbitant money was spent
during campaign awareness, 27.4% of them did not agree to this, while 24.4% were not sure
whether exorbitant money was spent during campaign awareness or not. The result indicated
that students who do not agree that exorbitant money was spent during campaign awareness
were significantly higher than those that agree (χ2=19.92, df=2; p<.01).
Also, 30.9% of the students affirmed that there was no support from hall of residence, faculty
and departmental friends, 50.5% of them did not agree to this, while 18.6% were not sure
whether there was no support from hall of residence, faculty and departmental friends or not.
The result indicated that students who do not agree that there was no support from hall of
residence, faculty and departmental friends were significantly higher than those that agree
(χ2=30.23, df=2; p<.01).
Additionally, 35.8% of the students affirmed that CGPA of greater or equals 3.5 was an issue,
48.0% of them did not agree to this, while 14.5% were not sure whether CGPA of greater or
equals 3.5 was an issue or not. The result indicated that students who do not agree that
CGPA of greater or equals 3.5 was an issue were significantly higher than those that agree
(χ2=36.45, df=2; p<.01).
Further, 46.9% of the students affirmed that there was victimization of students in school
politics, 35.9% of them did not agree to this, while 17.2% were not sure whether there was
victimization of students in school politics or not. The result indicated that students who do
not agree that there was victimization of students in school politics were significantly higher
than those that agree (χ2=25.97, df=2; p<.01).
Also, 26.7% of the students affirmed that faculty and departmental administration refused to
sign on the participant‟s form, 49.7% of them did not agree to this, while 23.6% were not
sure whether faculty and departmental administration refused to sign on the participant‟s
form or not. The result indicated that students who do not agree that faculty and
departmental administration refused to sign on the participant‟s form were significantly
higher than those that agree (χ2=23.91, df=2; p<.01).
The table also shows that 28.2% of the students affirmed that they lack interpersonal
relationship with students, 58.5% of them did not agree to this, while 13.3% were not sure
whether they lack interpersonal relationship with students or not. The result indicated that
students who do not agree that they lack interpersonal relationship with students were
significantly higher than those that agree (χ2=61.88, df=2; p<.01).
Also, 35.8% of the students affirmed that they were not popular, 53.9% of them did not agree
to this, while 10.4% were not sure whether they were not popular or not. The result indicated
that students who do not agree that they were not popular were significantly higher than those
that agree (χ2=55.50, df=2; p<.01).
Further, 25.0% of the students affirmed that their parents cautioned them not to get involved
in politics, 54.3% of them did not agree to this, while 10.7% were not sure whether their
parents cautioned them not to get involved in politics or not. The result indicated that
students who do not agree that their parents cautioned them not to get involved in politics
were significantly higher than those that agree (χ2=90.50, df=2; p<.01).
Additionally, 35.8% of the students affirmed that their academics was their priority, so they
have no business in school politics, 40.8% of them did not agree to this, while 9.4% were not
sure whether their academics was their priority, so they have no business in school politics or
not. The result indicated that students who do not agree that their academics was their
priority, so they have no business in school politics were significantly higher than those that
agree (χ2=51.40, df=2; p<.01).
Further, 32.7% of the students affirmed that they were shy to talk to the crowd, 63.3% of
them did not agree to this, while 4.1% were not sure whether they were shy to talk to the
crowd or not. The result indicated that students who do not agree that they were shy to talk to
the crowd were significantly higher than those that agree (χ2=103.02, df=2; p<.01).
Finally, 16.3% of the students affirmed that politics was meant for the radical students, 70.9%
of them did not agree to this, while 12.8% were not sure whether politics was meant for the
radical students or not. The result indicated that students who do not agree that politics was
meant for the radical students were significantly higher than those that agree (χ2=124.97,
df=2; p<.01).
Table 4.3 Causes of political unconsciousness and non-involvement among students
Items Yes No Not sure
df Χ
2
Exorbitant money spent during campaign awareness
95 (48.2%) 54 (27.4%) 48 (24.4%) 2 19.92*
No Support from hall of residence, faculty, and departmental friends
60 (30.9%) 98 (50.5%) 36 (18.6%) 2 30.23*
CGPA of greater or equals 3.5 is an issue
69 (35.8%) 96 (48.0%) 28 (14.5%) 2 36.45*
Victimization of students in school politics
90 (46.9%) 69 (35.9%) 33 (17.2%) 2 25.97*
Faculty and departmental administration will refuse to sign on the participant’s form
52 (26.7%) 97 (49.7%) 46 (23.6%) 2 23.91*
I lack interpersonal relationship with students
55 (28.2%) 114(58.5%) 26 (13.3%) 2 61.88*
I am not popular
69 (35.8%) 104(53.9%) 20 (10.4%) 2 55.50*
My parents cautioned me not to get involved
49 (25.0%) 126(54.3%) 21 (10.7%) 2 90.50*
My academics is my priority, so I have no business in school politics
78 (40.8%) 95 (49.7%) 18 (9.4%) 2 51.40*
I am shy to talk to the crowd
64 (32.7%) 124 (63.3%) 8 (4.1%) 2 103.02*
It is meant for the radical students
32 (16.3%) 139 (70.9%) 25 (12.8%) 2 124.97*
4.4 Solutions to Political Unconsciousness and non-involvement of Students
Table 4.4 below shows that, 7.7% of the students disagreed that to elect a student leader,
activism should be one of the criteria, 3.1% strongly disagreed, 38.1% agreed, while 51.0%
strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that to elect a student leader,
activism should be one of the criteria were significantly higher than those that disagreed
(χ2=126.37, p<.01).
Also, 4.1% of the students disagreed that the amount of money being spent on campaign
should be drastically regulated, 11.7% strongly disagreed, 51.0% agreed, while 33.2%
strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that the amount of money
being spent on campaign should be drastically regulated were significantly higher than those
that disagreed (χ2=106.41, p<.01).
Further, 1.0% of the students disagreed that candidates should be supported based on their
integrity and ability to serve, 4.1% strongly disagreed, 17.3% agreed, while 77.7% strongly
agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that candidates should be supported
based on their integrity and ability to serve were significantly higher than those that disagreed
(χ2=303.16, p<.01).
Additionally, 27.3% of the students disagreed that CGPA of 3.5 and above should not be used
to rate who is supposed to be a student leader, 30.8% strongly disagreed, 23.7% agreed, while
17.7% strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who disagreed that CGPA of 3.5
and above should not be used to rate who is supposed to be a student leader were
significantly higher than those that agreed (χ2=27.67, p<.01).
Also, 8.7% of the students disagreed that political parties should be structured down to the
tertiary level to give youths a personal sense of belonging, 19.5% strongly disagreed, 46.7%
agreed, while 25.1% strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that
political parties should be structured down to the tertiary level to give youths a personal sense
of belonging were significantly higher than those that disagreed (χ2=59.67, p<.01).
Further, 4.2% of the students disagreed that student unionism and associations should not be
scrapped, 8.3% strongly disagreed, 38.0% agreed, while 49.5% strongly agreed. The result
indicated that students who agreed that student unionism and associations should not be
scrapped were significantly higher than those that disagreed (χ2=113.71, p<.01).
Additionally, 10.1% of the students disagreed that if the victimization of students is
eradicated in the school politics, they will be fully involved, 32.0% strongly disagreed, 35.1%
agreed, while 21.8% strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that if the
victimization of students is eradicated in the school politics, they will be fully involved were
significantly higher than those that disagreed (χ2=29.92, p<.01).
Also, 1.5% of the students dis-agreed that faculty/departmental heads should allow students
to be involved by supporting them in every aspect, 10.2% strongly disagreed, 56.9% agreed,
while 31.5% strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that
faculty/departmental heads should allow students to be involved by supporting them in every
aspect were significantly higher than those that disagreed (χ2=144.06, p<.01).
Further, 7.7% of the students disagreed that the academic calendar of the school is not
helping so it should be balanced, 25.5% strongly disagreed, 46.9% agreed, while 19.4%
strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that the academic calendar of
the school is not helping so it should be balanced were significantly higher than those that
disagreed (χ2=63.88, p<.01).
Additionally, 3.1% of the students disagreed that intellectualism should be practiced in
operating a political position in the school, 6.8% strongly disagreed, 53.6% agreed, while
36.5% strongly agreed. The result indicated that students who agreed that intellectualism
should be practiced in operating a political position in the school were significantly higher
than those that disagreed (χ2=135.38, p<.01).
Finally, 8.5% of the students disagreed that they will be able to make tangible difference if
given an opportunity, 5.3% strongly disagreed, 44.1% agreed, while 42.0% strongly agreed.
The result indicated that students who agreed that they will be able to make tangible
difference if given an opportunity were significantly higher than those that disagreed
(χ2=98.94, p<.01).
Table 4.4 Solutions to Political Unconsciousness and non-involvement of Students
Items Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Df Χ2
To elect a student-leader, activism should be one of the criteria
15 (7.7%) 6 (3.1%) 74 (38.1%) 99 (51.0%) 3 126.37*
The amount of money being spent on campaign should be drastically regulated
8 (4.1%) 23 (11.7%) 100 (51.0%) 65 (33.2%) 3 106.41*
Candidates should be supported based on their integrity and ability to serve
2 (1.0%) 8 (4.1%) 34 (17.3%) 153 (77.7%) 3 303.16*
CGPA of 3.5 and above should not be used to rate who is supposed to be a student leader
55 (27.3%) 61 (30.8%) 47 (23.7%) 35 (17.7%) 3 27.67*
Political parties should be structured down to the tertiary level to give youths a personal sense
of belonging 17 (8.7%) 38 (19.5%) 91 (46.7%) 49 (25.1%) 3 59.67*
Student unionism and associations should not be scrapped 8 (4.2%) 16 (8.3%) 73 (38.0%) 95 (49.5%) 3 113.71*
If the victimization of students is eradicated in the school politics, I will be fully involved
19 (10.1%) 62 (32.0%) 66 (35.1%) 41 (21.8%) 3 29.92*
The faculty/departmental heads should allow students to be involved by supporting them in
every aspect
3 (1.5%) 20 (10.2%) 112 (56.9%) 62 (31.5%) 3 144.06*
The academic calendar of the school is not helping so it should be balanced
15 (7.7%) 51 (25.5%) 92 (46.9%) 38 (19.4%) 3 63.88*
Intellectualism should be practiced in operating a political position in the school
6 (3.1%) 13 (6.8%) 103 (53.6%) 70 (36.5%) 3 135.38*
I will be able to make tangible difference if given an opportunity to serve
16 (8.5%) 10 (5.3%) 83 (44.1%) 79 (42.0%) 3 98.94*
4.5 Research Questions
The results were presented in tables according to research questions.
Research objective 1: What is the level of political consciousness of University of Ibadan
students?
Table 4.5 below shows that 18.5% of the students indicated that they have high level of
consciousness in UI politics, 61% of them indicated that they have average level of
consciousness in UI politics, while 20.5% indicated that they have low level of consciousness
in UI politics. The result indicated that students who had low and average level of
consciousness were significantly higher than those that have high consciousness (χ2=69.01,
df=2; p<.01).
Also, 9.5% of the students indicated that they were fully involved in UI politics, 36% of them
indicated that they were partially involved in UI politics, while 54.5% indicated that they
were not involved in UI politics. The result indicated that students who were not involved in
UI politics are significantly higher than those that were fully and partially involved
(χ2=61.39, df=2; p<.01).
Further, 22% of the students indicated that they have held a political position in UI, while
98% of them indicated that they have not held a political position in UI. The result indicated
that students who have not held a political position in UI were significantly higher than those
that have held a political position in UI (χ2=58.71, df=2; p<.01).
Additionally, 19.5% of the students indicated that they intend to be a politician in the future,
57.5% of them indicated that they are not going to be a politician in the future, while 23.0%
indicated that they may be a politician in future. The result indicated that students who
intend to be politician in future were significantly lower than those that are not intending to
be politician in future (χ2=54.76, df=2; p<.01).
Also, 14% of the students indicated that they presently belong to a political party in Nigeria,
while 86% of them indicated that they did not. The result indicated that students who
presently belong to a political party in Nigeria were significantly lower than those that do not
belong to any political party (χ2=101.84, df=1; p<.01).
Further, 9% of the students indicated that they were fully involved in the 2015 general
election on campus, 42.5% of the students indicated that they were partially involved in the
2015 general election on campus, while 43.5% of the students indicated that they were not
involved in the 2015 general election on campus. The result indicated that students who were
fully involved in the 2015 general election were significantly lower than those that were not
involved (χ2=48.71, df=2; p<.01).
Additionally, 27% of the students indicated that they have PVC, while 73% of them indicated
that they have no PVC. The result indicated that students who have PVC were significantly
lower than those who do not have PVC (χ2=40.21, df=1; p<.01).
Finally, 18.9% of the students indicated that they did not have PVC because of age factor,
46.2% of them ascribe it to time factor, 16.1% of them indicated academic workload as the
factor, 5.6% of them indicated that they were not aware of the date of collection, while 13.3%
of them indicated that they were not aware of the date of registration. The result indicated a
significant effect on factors responsible for their not being able to collect PVC (χ2=68.15,
df=4; p<.01).
Table 4.5: Level of political consciousness of students
SN Items Freq. % df Χ2
1 What is your level of consciousness in University of Ibadan politics?
High 37 18.5
Average 122 61.0
Low 41 20.5 2 69.01*
2 What is your level of involvement in University of Ibadan politics?
Fully involved 19 9.5
Partially involved 72 36.0
Not involved 109 54.5 2 61.39*
3 Have you held/still holding a political position in University of Ibadan?
Yes 44 22.0
No 156 98.0 1 58.71*
4 Are you intending to be a politician in the future?
Yes 39 19.5
No 115 57.5
May be 46 23.0 2 54.76*
5 Do you presently belong to a political party in Nigeria?
Yes 28 14.0
No 172 86.0 1 101.84*
6 What is your major role in the 2015 general election on campus?
Fully involved 18 9.0
Partially involved 85 42.5
I don‟t feel like 87 43.5 2 48.71*
7 Do you have PVC permanent voter’s card?
Yes 54 27.0
No 146 73.0 1 40.21*
8 If No, what Caused it?
Age factor 27 18.9
No time to go register 66 46.2
Academic workload 23 16.1 4 68.15*
Not aware of the date of collection 8 5.6
Not aware of the date of registration 19 13.3
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between knowledge about politics and
political consciousness of students?
Table 4.6a below shows that, the chi-square test indicated a non-significant relationship
between knowledge about politics and political consciousness of students (Χ2 = 9.91, df=8,
p>.05). This implies that knowledge about politics has no significant relationship on political
consciousness of students.
Table 4.6a showing the relationship between knowledge about politics and political
consciousness among students
Options
Level of consciousness
Total
χ2
df
P High Average Low
Excellent 3 (1.5%) 7 (3.5%) 1 (0.5%) 11 (5.5%)
Very good 8 (4.0%) 19 (9.5%) 4 (2.0%) 31 (15.6%)
Average 20 (10.1%) 82 (41.2%) 27
(13.6%) 129 (64.8%) 9.91 8 >.05
Not good 3 (1.5%) 11 (5.5%) 5 (2.5%) 19 (9.5%)
Bad 3 (1.5%) 2 (1.0%) 4 (2.0%) 9 (4.5%)
Total 37 (18.6%) 121 (60.8%) 41
(20.6%) 199 (100%)
Table 4.6b below shows that, the chi-square test indicated a non-significant relationship
between knowledge about politics and level of involvement of students (Χ2 = 5.04, df=8,
p>.05). This implies that knowledge about politics has no significant relationship on political
unconsciousness of students.
Table 4.6b showing the relationship between knowledge about politics and level of
involvement in politics among students
Options
Level of involvement
Total
χ2
df
P Fully
involved
Partially
involved
Not
involved
Excellent 0 (0.0%) 5 (2.5%) 6 (3.0%) 11 (5.5%)
Very good 5 (2.5%) 12 (6.0%) 14 (7.0%) 31 (15.6%)
Average 12 (6.0%) 44 (22.1%) 73 (36.7%) 129 (64.8%) 5.04 8 >.05
Not good 2 (1.0%) 8 (4.0%) 9 (4.5%) 19 (9.5%)
Bad 0 (0.0%) 3 (1.5%) 6 (3.0%) 9 (4.5%)
Total 19 (9.5%) 72 (36.2%) 108 (54.3%) 199 (100%)
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between knowledge about politics and causes
of political unconsciousness of students?
Table 4.7a below shows that, the chi-square test indicated a non-significant relationship
between knowledge about politics and causes of political unconsciousness among students
(Χ2 = 6.35, df=8, p>.05). This implies that knowledge about politics has no significant
relationship on political unconsciousness of students.
Table 4.7a showing the relationship between knowledge about politics and causes of
political unconsciousness among students
Options
Exorbitant money spent during
campaign
Total
χ2
df
P
Yes No Not sure
Excellent 6 (3.1%) 2 (1.0%) 3 (1.5%) 11 (5.5%)
Very good 19 (9.7%) 6 (3.1%) 6 (3.1%) 31 (15.6%)
Average 60 (30.6%) 38 (19.4%) 30 (15.3%) 128 (65.3%) 6.35 8 >.05
Not good 8 (4.1%) 6 (3.1%) 4 (2.0%) 18 (9.2%)
Bad 2 (1.0%) 2 (1.0%) 4 (2.0%) 8 (4.1%)
Total 95 (48.5%) 54 (27.6%) 47 (24.0%) 196 (100%)
Table 4.7b below shows that, the chi-square test indicated a non-significant relationship
between knowledge about politics and political unconsciousness of students (Χ2 = 10.98,
df=8, p>.05). This implies that knowledge about politics has no significant relationship on
political unconsciousness of students.
Table 4.7b showing the relationship between knowledge about politics and causes of
political unconsciousness among students
Options
CGPA of greater or equals 3.5 is an
issue
Total
χ2
df
P
Yes No Not sure
Excellent 4 (2.1%) 5 (2.6%) 1 (0.5%) 10 (5.2%)
Very good 14 (7.3%) 11 (5.7%) 3 (1.6%) 28 (14.6%)
Average 48 (25.0%) 61 (31.8%) 19 (9.9%) 128 (65.3%) 10.98 8 >.05
Not good 2 (1.0%) 14 (7.3%) 2 (1.0%) 18 (9.2%)
Bad 1 (0.5%) 5 (2.6%) 2 (1.0%) 8 (4.1%)
Total 69 (35.9%) 96 (50.0%) 27 (24.0%) 192 (100%)
Research Question 4: Does political consciousness affects the solutions to the political
unconsciousness of students?
Table 4.8a below reveals a significant joint contribution of political consciousness factors to
the prediction of solutions to the political unconsciousness of students. The result yielded a
coefficient of multiple regressions R = 0.407, multiple R2=0.165 and Adjusted R
2=0.104.
This suggests that political consciousness factors jointly accounted for 10.4% (Adj.
R2=0.104) variation in the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of students.
The other variables accounted for the remaining percentage are beyond the scope of this
study. The ANOVA result from the regression analysis shows that there was a significant
joint effect of political consciousness factors on reduction of political unconsciousness of
students [F (9,123)=2.707, p<.01].
Table 4.8a: Regression analysis showing the joint contributions of political
consciousness factors to the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of
students
R = 0.407
R Square = 0.165
Adjusted R square = 0.104
Std. Error = 4.195
Source of variation Sum of
squares
Df Mean square F-ratio P
Regression 428.702 9 47.634 2.707 0.007
Residual 2164.125 123 17.595
Total 2592.827 132
Table 4.8b below shows the level of consciousness in University of Ibadan politics and major
role in the 2015 general election on campus are potent predictors of solutions to political
unconsciousness of students. The most potent factor was level of consciousness in University
of Ibadan politics (=-0.180, t=-3.866, p<.05). This implies that high level of consciousness
in University of Ibadan politics and role in the 2015 general election on campus will lead to
high solutions to the reduction of political unconsciousness of students. Based on this finding,
it can be deduced that political consciousness of students affects the solutions to political
unconsciousness of students.
Table 4.8b: Regression analysis showing the relative contributions of political
consciousness factors to the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of
students
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 37.450 5.976 6.266 .000
What is your level of consciousness in
University of Ibadan politics? -1.301 0.697 -0.180 -3.866 .046
What is your level of involvement in
University of Ibadan politics? -0.991 0.771 -0.147 -1.285 .201
What category of politics are you
involved in? 0.000 0.000 -0.036 -0.394 .694
Have you held/still holding a political
position in U.I. -0.993 1.260 -0.088 -0.788 .432
Are you intending to be a politician in
the future -0.505 0.651 -0.068 -0.777 .439
Do you presently belong to a political
party in Nigeria? 1.378 1.625 0.078 0.848 .398
What is your major role in the 2015
general election on campus? -1.257 0.662 -0.173 -2.900 .030
Do you have PVC (permanent voter‟s
card)? 2.074 2.661 0.070 0.780 .437
If NO, what caused it? -0.230 0.297 -0.065 -0.773 .441
Research Question 5: What are the effects of demographic variables on level of knowledge
about politics?
Table 4.9a below indicates that, the chi-square test has a non-significant relationship between
sex and knowledge about politics among students (Χ2 = 5.18, df=4, p>.05). This implies that
sex has no significant relationship with knowledge about politics among students.
Table 4.9a showing the relationship between sex and knowledge about politics among
students
Options
Sex
Total
χ2
df
P Male Female
Excellent 8 (4.0%) 3 (1.5%) 11 (5.5%)
Very good 16 (8.0%) 15 (7.5%) 31 (15.6%)
Average 87 (43.7%) 42 (21.1%) 129 (64.8%) 5.18 4 >.05
Not good 15 (7.5%) 4 (2.0%) 19 (9.5%)
Bad 7 (3.5%) 2 (1.0%) 9 (4.5%)
Total 133 (66.8%) 66 (33.2%) 199 (100%)
Table 4.9b below indicates that, the chi-square test has a non-significant relationship between
religion and knowledge about politics among students (Χ2 = 5.18, df=4, p>.05). This implies
that religion has no significant relationship with knowledge about politics among students.
Table 4.9b showing the relationship between religion and knowledge about politics
among students
Options
Religion
Total
χ2 df P
Christian Muslim Traditional
No
religion
Excellent 9 (4.5%) 2 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 11 (5.5%)
Very good 24
(12.1%) 5 (2.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%)
31
(15.6%)
Average 113
(56.8%) 14 (7.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.0%)
129
(64.8%) 9.19 12 >.05
Not good 16 (8.0%) 2 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.5%) 19 (9.5%)
Bad 7 (3.5%) 2 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (4.5%)
Total 169
(84.9%)
25
(12.6%) 1 (0.5%) 4 (2.0%)
199
(100%)
Table 4.9c below indicates that, the chi-square test has a non-significant relationship between
age and knowledge about politics among students (Χ2 = 5.18, df=4, p>.05). This implies that
age has no significant relationship with knowledge about politics students.
Table 4.9c showing the relationship between Age and knowledge about politics among
students
Options
Age range
Total
χ2 df P
16-20 yrs 21-24 yrs 25-29 yrs > 30 yrs
Excellent 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.0%)
Very good 11 (5.5%) 7 (3.5%) 2 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 20
(10.0%)
Average 36
(18.0%)
26
(13.0%) 7 (3.5%) 0 (0.0%)
69
(34.5%) 8.64 12 >.05
Not good 34
(17.0%)
36
(18.0%) 4 (2.0%) 3 (1.5%)
77
(38.5%)
Bad 14 (7.0%) 12 (6.0%) 4 (2.0%) 2 (1.0%) 32
(16.0%)
Total 96
(48.0%)
82
(41.0%) 17 (8.5%) 5 (2.5%)
200
(100%)
Research Question 6: What are the effects of demographic variables on solutions to political
unconsciousness of students?
Table 4.10a below reveals a significant joint contribution of demographic factors to the
prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of students. The result yielded a
coefficient of multiple regressions R = 0.133, multiple R2=0.016 and Adjusted R
2=-0.003.
This suggests that demographic factors jointly accounted for less than 1% (Adj. R2=-0.003)
variation in the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of students.
The other variables accounted for the remaining percentage are beyond the scope of this
study. The ANOVA result from the regression analysis shows that there was no significant
joint effect of demographic factors on solutions to political unconsciousness of students [F
(4,194)=0.877, p>.05].
Table 4.10a: Regression analysis showing the joint contributions of demographic
factors to the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of students
R = 0.133
R Square = 0.018
Adjusted R square = -0.003
Std. Error = 4.467
Source of variation Sum of
squares
Df Mean square F-ratio P
Regression 69.952 4 17.488 0.877 0.479
Residual 3870.641 194 19.952
Total 3940.593 198
Table 4.10b below shows that, age, level of study, sex and religion are not potent predictors
of solutions to political unconsciousness of students. None of the demographic factors
significantly contributed to the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of
students; age (=0.128, t=1.573, p>.05; level of study - =-0.038, t=-0.461, p>.05; level of
study - =-0.052, t=-0.681, p>.05 & religion - =-0.049, t=-0.669, p>.05). This implies that
neither age, level of study, sex nor religion affects political unconsciousness of students.
Table 4.10b: Regression analysis showing the relative contributions of political
consciousness factors to the prediction of solutions to political unconsciousness of
students
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 33.314 1.786 18.653 .000
Age range 0.773 0.492 0.128 1.573 .117
Level of study -0.002 0.004 -0.038 -0.461 .645
Sex -0.486 0.714 -0.052 -0.681 .497
Religion -0.406 0.607 -0.049 -0.669 .505
Part Two
Table 4.11 below shows that, there is no significant difference across the years
(2011 – 2015) of number of votes cast by students for President [F(4,55)=2.068, p>.05)];
Vice President [F(4,55)=2.143, p>.05)]; General Secretary [F(4,55)=1.899, p>.05)]; Sports
Secretary [F(3,44)=0.800, p>.05)]; Treasurer [F(2,33)=0.949, p>.05)]; Assistant General
Secretary [F(3,44)=2.278, p>.05)]; House Secretary [F(4,55)=2.276, p>.05)] and Public
Relations Officer [F(1,22)=3.742, p>.05)]. This implies that the number of votes cast for the
period for all contested positions follow same pattern or sequence, and that there is no
variation in the voting pattern.
Table 4.11: One-way ANOVA showing significant difference across years of number of
votes cast by students of various positions contested at University of Ibadan
Positions Source of
Variance
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F P
President result
Year 307065.60 4 76766.40 2.068 .097
Error 2041598.00 55 37119.96
Total 2348663.60 59
Vice President
result
Year 323108.60 4 80777.15 2.143 .088
Error 2073449.00 55 37699.07
Total 2396557.60 59
General Secretary
results
Year 278769.07 4 69692.27 1.899 .124
Error 2017981.67 55 36690.58
Total 2296750.73 59
Sports Secretary
result
Year 70102.75 3 23367.58 0.800 .500
Error 1284757.17 44 29199.03
Total 1354859.92 47
Treasurer result
Year 85285.72 2 42642.86 0.949 .397
Error 1482059.92 33 44910.91
Total 1567345.64 35
Assistant General
Secretary result
Year 258626.00 3 86208.67 2.278 .093
Error 1664947.00 44 37839.71
Total 1923573.00 47
House Secretary
result
Year 321444.73 4 80361.18 2.276 .073
Error 1941766.92 55 35304.85
Total 2263211.65 59
Public Relations
Officer result
Year 98432.04 1 98432.04 3.742 .066
Error 578630.58 22 26301.39
Total 677062.63 23
Table 4.12 below shows that, there is positive relationship between any pair of number of
votes cast of positions by students (p<.01). This implies that there is a linear relationship
between numbers of votes cast for President and all other positions. This indicates that
increase in numbers of votes cast for Presidential position will lead to number of votes cast
for all other positions.
Table 4.12: Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) of the relationship between
number of vote cast for all positions contested by student at University of Ibadan during
the period 2011 – 2015
Positions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
President result 1
Vice President result 0.999**
1
General Secretary results 0.997**
0.998**
1
Sports Secretary result 0.994**
0.995**
0.995**
1
Treasurer result 0.999**
0.998**
0.997**
0.995**
1
Assistant General
Secretary result 0.995
** 0.996
** 0.994
** 0.991
** 0.997
** 1
House Secretary result 0.994**
0.995**
0.995**
0.986**
0.998**
0.994**
1
Public Relations Officer
result 0.992
** 0.994
** 0.995
** 0.982
** 0.999
** 0.995
** 0.997
** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.13 below shows the percentage of the total vote cast per halls of residence to the
number of eligible voters in each hall of residence and the total vote cast ranging from 2011
to 2015 to the total number of students in all the halls per year. From the result above we can
deduce that Tafawa Balewa Hall has the lowest vote over the years while the voting rate of
other halls varies per year.
Abdulsalam Abubakar Hall has (18.3%) in year 2011, (11.5%) in year 2012, (24.5%) in
year 2013, (25.4%) in year 2014 and (32.7%) in year 2015. In year 2015 out of the 100%
eligible voters in the hall about 32.7% voted which has the highest percentage and year 2012
has the least percentage of votes.
Alexander Brown Hall has (41.5%) voters in year 2011, (47.5%) in year 2012, (18.7%) in
year 2013, (32.6%) in year 2014, (36.8%) in year 2015. The result indicates that year 2012
has a highest percentage of votes while year 2013 has the least percentage of votes.
Obafemi Awolowo Hall (15.4%) students voted in year 2011, (11.1%) voted in year 2012,
(20.7%) voted in year 2013, (33.4%) voted in year 2014 and (24.6%) voted in year 2015. The
result indicates that Awo hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Tafawa Balewa Hall (10.4%) students voted in year 2011, (13.4%) voted in year 2012,
(17.3%) voted in year 2013, (14.4%) voted in year 2014 and (19.8%) voted in year 2015. The
result indicates that Balewa hall students voted more in the year 2015.
Sultan Bello Hall (47.0%) students voted in year 2011, (37.6%) voted in year 2012, (47.0%)
voted in year 2013, (59.1%) voted in year 2014 and (46.3%) voted in year 2015. The result
indicates that Bello hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Independence Hall (33.1%) students voted in year 2011, (29.9%) voted in year 2012,
(31.1%) voted in year 2013, (45.7%) voted in year 2014 and (33.9%) voted in year 2015. The
result indicates that Indy hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Kuti Hall (45.6%) students voted in year 2011, (50.8%) voted in year 2012, (37.5%) voted in
year 2013, (57.3%) voted in year 2014 and (42.5%) voted in year 2015. The result indicates
that Kuti hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Kenneth Mellanby Hall (45.4%) students voted in year 2011, (0.2%) voted in year 2012,
(38.9%) voted in year 2013, (49.7%) voted in year 2014 and (48.8%) voted in year 2015. The
result indicates that Mellanby hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Queen Elizabeth II Hall (34.6%) students voted in year 2011, (24.8%) voted in year 2012,
(27.9%) voted in year 2013, (39.3%) voted in year 2014 and (25.0%) voted in year 2015. The
result indicates that Queens hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Queen Idia Hall (41.7%) students voted in year 2011, (29.7%) voted in year 2012, (32.7%)
voted in year 2013, (58.0%) voted in year 2014 and (40.3%) voted in year 2015. The result
indicates that Idia hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Tedder Hall (51.0%) students voted in year 2011, (32.1%) voted in year 2012, (40.4%)
voted in year 2013, (49.2%) voted in year 2014 and (42.5%) voted in year 2015. The result
indicates that Tedder hall students voted more in the year 2014.
Nnamdi Azikwe Hall (39.7%) students voted in year 2011, (23.0%) voted in year 2012,
(31.9%) voted in year 2013, (44.5%) voted in year 2014 and (35.0%) voted in year 2015. The
result indicates that Zik hall students voted more in the year 2014.
The total number of voter in all the halls of residence in the year 2011 is 4,768 and the
percentage of voters to the number of eligible voters is 34.8%, in year 2012 is a total number
of 3,429 voters and percentage of voters to the number of eligible voters is 25.0%, in year
2013 is a total number of 4,164 voters and percentage of voters to the number of eligible
voters is 30.4%, in year 2014 is a total number of 6,021 and percentage of voters to the
number of eligible voters is 43.9%, in year 2015 is a total number of 4,750 and percentage of
voters to the number of eligible voters is 34.6%.
The results above indicates that, students in each halls voted more in the year 2014 and also
in the total number of votes per year, year 2014 has the highest number of voters and the
percentage of voter is higher than the other election years.
Table 4.13: Percentage of total number of voters to the number of eligible voters per
halls of residence and per year (2011 - 2015) in the University of Ibadan
Hall Of Residence 2011 % 2012 % 2013 % 2014 % 2015 %
Abdulsalam
Abubakar 102 18.3 64 11.5 136 24.5 141 25.4 182 32.7
Alexander Brown 301 41.5 345 47.5 136 18.7 237 32.6 267 36.8
Obafemi Awolowo 391 15.4 282 11.1 527 20.7 848 33.4 624 24.6
Tafawa Balewa 21 10.4 27 13.4 35 17.3 29 14.4 40 19.8
Sultan Bello 366 47.0 293 37.6 366 47.0 460 59.1 361 46.3
Independence 512 33.1 463 29.9 481 31.1 706 45.7 524 33.9
Kuti 395 45.6 440 50.8 325 37.5 496 57.3 368 42.5
Kenneth Mellanby 391 45.4 2 0.2 335 38.9 428 49.7 421 48.8
Queen Elizabeth II 558 34.6 400 24.8 450 27.9 634 39.3 404 25.0
Queen Idia 644 41.7 459 29.7 505 32.7 896 58.0 623 40.3
Tedder 473 51.0 298 32.1 375 40.4 457 49.2 394 42.5
Nnamdi Azikwe 614 39.7 356 23.0 493 31.9 689 44.5 542 35.0
Total 4768 34.8 3429 25.0 4164 30.4 6021 43.9 4750 34.6
Figure 1 shows the chart rate of votes in the halls of residence for five years; we can deduce
from the chart that Queen Idia hall has a higher percentage of votes cast in five years while
Nnamdi Azikwe hall, Independence hall and Awolowo hall has the same trend of vote cast.
Also other halls vary and Tafawa Balewa hall has the least vote cast over the years followed
by Abdulsalam Abubakar hall.
Figure 1 chart showing the Percentage of total number of voters to the number of
eligible voters per halls of residence and per year (2011 - 2015) in the University of
Ibadan
Figure 2 below is the Graph showing voting pattern of students for various positions
contested across the halls of residence in University of Ibadan. In each of the halls the
positions from President to Public Relation Officer Results follows the same trend. Also there
is increase in the total of vote cast for halls like Queen Idia, Independence Hall, Obafemi
Awolowo hall, Queen Elizabeth II hall, Nnamdi Azikwe hall while halls like Tafawa Balewa,
Abdulsalam Abubakar hall has a decrease in total vote cast and the total vote cast in other
halls like Bello hall, Kuti, Tedder varies. And all the votes cast in the period of the five
electioneering years in all the halls of residence follows the same trend.
Figure 2: Graph showing voting pattern of various positions contested across
residential halls by students at University of Ibadan
Figure 3 below is the Chart showing trend of votes cast by students at University of Ibadan
for the period 2011 – 2015. The total number of votes cast in the year 2011 (4,796), year
2012 (3,429), year 2013 (4,164), year 2014 (6,021), year 2015 (4,720). This implies that, the
trend of vote cast by students at the University of Ibadan in the year 2014 is higher than the
other years.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Abd
usalam
Hall
ABH
Awolow
o Hall
Balew
a Hall
Bello H
all
Inde
pend
ent H
all
Kuti H
all
Mellanb
y Hall
Que
en E
lizab
eth Hall
Que
en Id
ia H
all
Ted
der Hall
Azikiwe Hall
To
tal
vo
tes c
ast
President result Vice President result
General Secretary results Sports Secretary result
Treasurer result Assistant General Secretary result
House Secretary result Public Relations Officer result
Figure 3: Chart showing trend of votes cast by students at University of Ibadan for the
period 2011 - 2015
Chart showing trend of votes cast by students at University of Ibadan for the period 2011 - 2015
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Period (years)
To
tal vo
tes
President result
Vice President result
General Secretary results
Sports Secretary result
Treasurer result
Assistant General Secretary result
House Secretary result
Public Relations Officer result
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study examined the level of political consciousness, knowledge, causes of political
unconsciousness and solution to political unconsciousness and non-involvement among
students of University of Ibadan. Five research questions were tested using chi-square and
multiple regression analysis.
5.1 SUMMARY
Based on the findings of the research, it can be summarized that there was less than 40%
knowledge and awareness of politics among University of Ibadan students. Also, it can be
deduced from the result that less than 40% of the students affirmed that factors highlighted
were actually responsible for causes of unconsciousness and non-involvement in politics
among University of Ibadan students. Further, over 80% of the students agreed that factors
highlighted were solutions to unconsciousness and non-involvement in politics among
University of Ibadan students. However, the factor that has to do with CGPA, gave contrary
result, that is 58.1% of the students disagreed, while 41.9% agreed. Finally, from the result
the level of political consciousness and involvement among University of Ibadan students is
less than 30%.
5.2 CONCLUSION
Based on the findings from result of Questionnaires and Students‟ Union Election result from
year 2011 to 2015, it shows that there is similarity in the knowledge of politics, political
consciousness and involvement of students in politics, and voting pattern by students of
University of Ibadan.
5.3 RECOMMENDATION
Based on the results of this research work, it was deduced why students refuse to be
politically conscious and get involved in the political affairs of the school. Additionally, for
those students participating in student politics, either that they contest for a political position
or not, these recommendations will make them know how to choose the best student leader
and also how to encourage students who has the gift of leadership to contest. Based on these
facts, the following are the recommendations:
1. Political aspirants should be supported based on their integrity, intelligence and
strength. If their integrity cannot be found one should not bother to check if they are
intelligent and strong.
2. The amount of money being spent on campaign and awareness should be drastically
regulated so as to give an average student an opportunity to contest for a political
position.
3. To elect student leader, intellectualism and activism should be a criteria.
4. Our primary assignment in this citadel of learning is to have academic excellence
every other thing is secondary, so CGPA of 3.5 and above can never be under
estimated. Students should endeavor to have a good result before he/she could contest
for any political position in the University of Ibadan.
5. The Institution is a learning ground, to have a better Nigeria political parties should be
structured down to the tertiary level to give youths a personal sense of belonging in
the political affairs of this nation. Since youths future and strength of a nation.
6. Student unionism and associations should not be scrapped. Because, we are exercising
our leadership skill and learning from our mistakes as a student leader.
7. The faculty/departmental heads should allow students to be involved in student
politics by supporting them in every aspect such as signing of forms for them etc.
8. The academic calendar of the school should be balanced, that is, create time for other
activities apart from lectures.
9. For students who want to contest for any political position in the University of Ibadan
should not lack interpersonal relationship with students, for example, greeting people,
being humble and friendly, argue constructively and logically, knowing when to talk
and when not to talk.
10. Students should endeavor to attend Debates and Manifestos so as to know whose
plans are realistic or not, achievable or not before making up your mind on who to
vote for rather than listening to jingles or seeing posters or flyers floating about.
REFERENCES
Ajayi JF (1990). Nigerian National Merit Award: Award Winners Lecture, Lagos,
NIIA, p. 19.
Akintoye, 1973; Fafunwa, 1974; Fabiyi, http:nigeriaworld.com/feature/publication)
Almond GA (1974). (ed). Comparative Politics Today, Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.
Almond G, Powell B (1966). Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,
Almond and Verba (1963). The civic culture. Democracy in five nations. Princeton
University Press.
Anise L (1979). Confrontation Politics and Crises Management Nigerian University
Students and Public Policy. In Issue. 9:1.
Balakrishnan, V. K. (1997-02-01). Graph Theory (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-
005489-4.
Bang-Jensen, J.; Gutin, G. (2000). Digraphs: Theory, Algorithms and Applications.
Springer.
Black, K. (2010) “Business Statistics: Contemporary Decision Making” 6th
edition,
John Wiley & Sons
Bollobás, Béla (2002-08-12). Modern Graph Theory (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 0-387-
98488-7.
Burden, B. (2009). The dynamic effects of education on voter turnout. Electoral
Studies, 28, 540-549.
C.M. Ngou, “Elections and the Formation of the Independence Government,” Chapter
7, in Peter P. Ekeh, Patrick Dele Cole and Gabriel O. Olusanya (eds.), Nigeria Since
Independence: The First Twenty Five Years: Volume 5, Politics and Constitutions,
Ibadan:
Cole, E. R., Zucker, A. N., & Ostrove, J. M. (1998). Political participation and
feminist consciousness among women activists of the 1960s. Political Psychology, 19,
349– 371.
Diestel, Reinhard (2005). Graph Theory (3rd ed.). Berlin, New York: Springer-
Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-26183-4.
Fisher, R.A. (1915). "Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation
coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population". Biometrika10 (4): 507–
521. doi:10.1093/biomet/10.4.507.
Gayen, A.K. (1951). "The frequency distribution of the product moment correlation
coefficient in random samples of any size draws from non-normal universes".
Biometrika38: 219–247. doi:10.1093/biomet/38.1-2.219.
Heinemann, 1989
Karl Pearson (20 June 1895) "Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two
parents," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 58 : 240–242.
Kirby, E.H & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2009). CIRCLE Fact Sheet: The youth vote
in 2008. Medford, MA: Tufts University Tisch College of Citizenship and Public
Service. Accessed online on 9 February, 2010 from
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_youth_Voting_2008_updated_6.22
M.A. Adelabu and A.O. Akinsolu (Department of Educational Administration and
Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. National Institute of
Educational Planning and Administration, Ondo, Nigeria). Accepted 6 January, 2009
Mr. O.B. Akanbi - Sampling Survey Lecture Note Unpublished
Patrick E. Ollawa, “The 1979 Elections,” in Peter P. Ekeh, Patrick Dele Cole and
Gabriel O. Olusanya (eds.), Nigeria Since Independence, The First Twenty Five
Years: Politics and Constitutions, Ibadan: Heinemann, 1989
Peter P. Ekeh, Patrick Dele Cole and Gabriel O. Olusanya (eds.), Nigeria Since
Independence, The First Twenty Five Years: Politics and Constitutions, Ibadan:
Heinemann, 1989.
APPENDIX
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS
QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear respondent,
I am a 400 level student of the Department of statistics, University of Ibadan. I am conducting a research to know the political consciousness and involvement of students in school politics. Therefore, I request your participation in this study because it would contribute to realizing the objectives of the study without much inconvenience to you. This information will be treated confidentially. Thank you.
SECTION A
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
1. Hall of residence______________________________
2. Age range (years) (a) 16-20 [ ] (b) 21-24 [ ] (c) 25-29 (d) ≥30
3. Faculty______________________________________
4. Department__________________________________
5. Level________________________________________
6. Sex (a) Male [ ] (b) Female [ ]
7. Religion (a) Christian (b) Muslim (c) Traditional (d) No religion
8. Tribe__________________________________________
SECTION B
KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS ABOUT POLITICS
1. What is your view about politics in the University of Ibadan? (a) Excellent [ ]
(b)Very good [ ] (c) Average [ ] (d) Not good [ ] (e) bad [ ]
2. What is your view about politics in Nigeria? (a) Excellent [ ] (b) Very good [ ]
(c) Average [ ] (d) Not good [ ] (e) bad [ ]
3. Are we really practicing Unionism in the University of Ibadan? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [
] (c) Not sure [ ]
4. Are we really practicing democracy in Nigeria? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Not sure [
]
5. Is there god-fatherism in the University of Ibadan politics unlike politics in Nigeria?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ] (c) Not sure [ ]
6. With the way Nigeria’s politics is being run do you think youths are still the leaders
of tomorrow? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No[ ] (c) Not sure [ ]
7. If NO, why? (a) Age factor [ ] (b)Financial factor [ ] (c)most youths are dependant
[ ] (d) corruption among youth [ ] (e) hierarchy in party structure [ ] (f) Youths
have no foresight [ ]
8. What are the characteristics an aspiring student leader must possess? (a) Integrity,
Intelligence & Strength [ ] (b) popularity, wealth & CGPA [ ] (C) Brilliance,
CGPA & integrity [ ] (d) Loyalty, Respect & Humility [ ]
9. Which of these do you think is the best method to be put into practice to test an
aspirant before appointing them into the University of Ibadan Political offices? [you
can choose one or more] (a) manifesto [ ] (b) debate [ ] (c) media publicity [ ] (d)
social network publicity (e) meeting people one-on-one (f) first to start awareness [ ]
SECTION C
LEVEL OF POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND INVOLVEMENT
1. What is your level of consciousness in University of Ibadan politics? (a) High [ ] (b)
Average [ ] (c) Low [ ]
2. What is your level of involvement in University of Ibadan politics? (a) fully involved
[ ] (b) partially involved [ ] (c) not involved [ ]
3. What category of politics are you involved in? [Choose appropriately] (a)
Department [ ] (b) Faculty [ ] (c) Hall of residence [ ] (d) Student Union [ ] (e)
Outside School [ ]
4. Have you held/still holding a political position in U.I. (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
5. If YES in (4) above, State the position [either before/present]_____________________
6. Are you intending to be a politician in the future (a) Yes [ ] (b) No[ ] (c) Maybe [ ]
7. Do you presently belong to a political party in Nigeria? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
8. If YES in (7) above, specify the name of the political party you belong to ___________
9. If NO in (7) above, specify the name of the political party you would like to join?
______________
10. What was your major role in the 2015 general election on campus? (a) Fully involved
[ ] (b) Partially involved [ ] (c) I don’t feel like [ ]
11. Do you have PVC (permanent voter’s card)? (a) Yes [ ](b) No[ ]
12. If NO, what caused it? (a) Age factor [ ] (b) No time to go register [ ] (c) Academic
workload [ ] (d) Not aware of the date of collection [ ] (e) Not aware of the date of
registration [ ]
SECTION D CAUSES OF POLITICAL UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND NON-INVOLVEMENT AMONG STUDENTS SN Questions Yes No Not
sure
1 Exorbitant money spent during campaign awareness
2 No Support from hall of residence, faculty, and departmental friends
3 CGPA of ≥3.5 is an issue
4 Victimization of students in school politics
5 Faculty and departmental administration will refuse to sign on the participant’s form
6 I lack interpersonal relationship with students
7 I am not popular
8 My parents cautioned me not to get involved
9 My academics is my priority, so I have no business in school politics
10 I am shy to talk to the crowd
11 It is meant for the radical students
SECTION E SOLUTIONS TO POLITICAL UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND NON-INVOLVEMENT OF STUDENTS Strongly Agree (SA)=4; Agree (A)=3; Disagree (D)=2; Strongly disagree (SD)=1
SN Questions SA A D SD
1 To elect a student-leader, activism should be one of the criteria
2 The amount of money being spent on campaign should be drastically regulated
3 Candidates should be supported based on their integrity and ability to serve
4 CGPA of 3.5 and above should not be used to rate who is suppose to be a student leader
5 Political parties should be structured down to the tertiary level to give youths a personal sense of belonging
6 Student unionism and associations should not be scrapped
7 If the victimization of students is eradicated in the school politics, I will be fully involved
8 The faculty/departmental heads should allow students to be involved by supporting them in every aspect
9 The academic calendar of the school is not helping so it should be balanced
10 Intellectualism should be practiced in operating a political position in the school
11 I will be able to make tangible difference if given an opportunity to serve
