A Community of Resilience:
Resilience in Vulnerable Children Through the
Lens of Agency, Community Relationships, and South Africa’s Ubuntu
Tedi Marie Kennedy 11137339
Research Master’s International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS)
Supervisor: Jacobijn Olthoff Second Reader: Courtney Vegelin
30 June 2017 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Our children are the rock on which our future will be built, our greatest asset as a nation. They will be the leaders of our country, the creators of our national wealth, those who care for and protect our people. ~Nelson Mandela~
Hardships often prepare ordinary people for an extraordinary destiny ~C. S. Lewis~
In order to succeed, people need a sense of self-efficacy, to struggle together with resilience to meet the inevitable obstacles and inequities of life. ~Albert Bandura~
Acknowledgments
There is a traditional African proverb that states, “It takes a village to raise a child.” This saying is no truer than in a community such as Gugulethu. The saying also stands true for my
research. I had a village of support guiding me before I landed in Cape Town, during my data collecting process in Gugulethu, and while I was writing this thesis in Amsterdam First and foremost, I must thank my supervisor Jacobijn Olthoff. You guided my research
from start to finish with a little Dutch directness, but more importantly with care and patience. Pushing me along the way to think more critically and to constantly reflect on my research. Whether I was in the field or in Amsterdam you made yourself available no matter
what time of day to ensure my thesis was the best that it could be. To which I am truly thankful
To my second reader Courtney Vegelin, thank you for taking the time to read my thesis. The feedback I received from you added clarity to my thesis and ease to the writing process To my fellow International Development students, who offered many moments to pause and
take a break from being a researcher, it was much needed
To Ikamva Labantu who graciously opened up their doors and minds to allow me to conduct research at Rainbow Centre in Gugulethu
To Nyasha Manjengenja, my supervisor at Rainbow Centre, thank you for guiding my internship and pushing me to get the most out of my stay in Cape Town and my research in
Gugulethu, you added richness to my research
To the fifteen community-based workers at Rainbow Centre, you taught me that sometimes its okay to leave the work aside and build friendships instead because at the end of the day the
rest will follow. Thank you for your time, your thoughtful responses to my many questions and your isiXhosa language skills
To Joylyn, Busisiwe, Zintle, Shanice, and Ayesha, thank you for your companionship and friendship while at Rainbow Centre. You all were there for me when I needed a little extra
push and encouragement to finish my research
To Nobukhosi Ntsele, you were the first person I had contact with in South Africa, you ensured that I would have a safe and caring place to stay during my time in Cape Town, with
out which my stay would not have been possible. Here’s to a life long friendship Finally, to my sis, Thabisile Goba, words cannot express how truly grateful I am that a series
of friends brought us together. For four months you selflessly took care of me and ensured that all my needs were met. What blossomed in those four months was a sisterhood that not
even distance can break. Like a sister you were there for every step of my journey to guarantee that nothing stood in the way of my research not even myself
Table of Contents Acknowledgments ... 3 Abstract ... 7 Chapter 1: Introduction ... 8 Introduction ... 9 Outline of Chapters ... 10
Chapter 2: Conceptual and Theortical Framework ... 11
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework ... 12
Social Ecology ... 12
Social Ecological Framework and This Research ... 15
Resilience ... 15
The Definition of Resilience ... 17
Agency ... 17
Ubuntu ... 19
Conceptual Model ... 20
Social Ecology and Ubuntu ... 21
Social Ecology and Gugulethu ... 21
Social Ecology and Agency ... 21
Chapter 3: Research Design ... 23
Ontology: Constructivism ... 24
Epistemology: Interpretivism ... 24
Methodology ... 24
Mixed Method Design ... 25
The Methods ... 26
Qualitative Data: Interviews, Photo Elicitation, and Group Interviews ... 27
Photo Elicitation ... 27
Semi- Structured Interviews ... 28
Groups Interviews ... 28
Quantitative Data: Child and Youth Resilience Measurement ... 29
Ethical Considerations ... 30
Methodological Limitations ... 31
Experience in the Field ... 32
Operationalization ... 32
Chapter 4: Research Contexr ... 36
Research Context ... 37
Contextualizing Childhood Experiences ... 37
Crime in Context ... 37
Neglect in Context ... 37
The Setting: Cape Town, South Africa ... 38
The Economy: Socioeconomics in South Africa ... 39
The Field: Gugulethu ... 41
The Field: A Different Side of Gugulethu ... 41
Navigation ... 41
Community Atmosphere ... 41
Policing, Health Care, and Social Services ... 42
Geography ... 43
The Case: Ikamva Labantu- Rainbow Centre ... 44
Chapter 5: The Role of Ubuntu ... 46
The Role of Ubuntu ... 47
Defining Ubuntu ... 47
Defining Ubuntu ... 47
Redefining Ubuntu ... 48
Analyzing Ubuntu and Resilience ... 50
Ubuntu as Resilience ... 53
Concluding Remarks ... 53
Chapter 6: Gugulethu and Resilience ... 55
Gugulethu and Resilience ... 56
The Challenge Model of Resilience ... 56
The Power of Gugulethu ... 56
The Stakeholders ... 57 Street Committees ... 58 Public Services ... 58 Non-governmental Organizations ... 60 Schools ... 60 Community as Resilience ... 61
Photo Analysis of Gugulethu ... 62
The Images ... 62
Understanding the Drawings ... 65
The Interviews ... 65
The Challenge Model of Resilience and Gugulethu ... 66
Closing Remarks ... 67
Chapter 7: Expressing Resilience ... 68
Expressing Resilience ... 69
Resilient ... 69
Analyzing the Interviews ... 69
Agency as Knowledge ... 69
Agency as Desire ... 70
Agency as Ability ... 71
Agency as Resilience ... 73
Ubuntu’s Role in Resilience ... 74
Community’s Role in Resilience ... 74
Concluding Remarks ... 75
Chapter 8: Conclusion and Discussion ... 76
Conclusion and Discussion ... 77
Summary ... 77
Introduction and Design ... 77
Empirical Findings ... 78
Chapter 5 ... 78
Implications and Concluding Remarks ... 80 References ... 82
Abstract
The study of resilience has been gaining recognition in social science research. While a wide array of factors that contribute to resilience have been studied, little attention has been given to cultural factors. This paper addresses the role ubuntu plays in children’s ability to develop their resilience in the face of social ecological risk factors. Ubuntu is a cultural philosophy and belief that humanity is interconnected and as such individuals have a responsibility to care for and protect others. To examine resilience, this paper uses the social ecological framework as developed by the Chicago School as a reminder that children do not grow up in a vacuum and are socialized by their environment. Relationships to parents, friends, the community, and ubuntu all play a factor in how children develop their resilience. The paper is based on empirical research carried out in the township of Gugulethu in South Africa, using mixed methods. These methods include the Child and Youth Resilience Measure survey created by the Resilience Research Centre, a photo elicitation process, interviews and group interviews with children, community-based workers, and social workers. This paper aims to show how the community of Gugulethu may influence children's ability to develop their resilience more so than ubuntu. However, there are elements of ubuntu that support children's ability to become more resilient. Implications for this paper highlight the importance of community relationships for children's ability to develop resilience.
Keywords: resilience, neglect, social ecology, ubuntu, agency, children, South Africa, Gugulethu
Introduction
It was one of the most shocking acts of violence I have ever seen a child perpetuate. I was observing a classroom of students, aged 13 through 15. As this was the first weeks in the field, I was making an attempt to familiarize myself with the daily schedule of the center I was to be working at. As I sat off to the side, the students grew more and more restless as 5 o'clock approached. I continued to watch on as a young boy stopped in front of me and locked his hands around the neck of a boy that was standing by him. He proceeded to choke the boy while attempting to drag him out of the classroom by the neck. He was unsuccessful as one of the facilitators broke the two boys up. The act itself was appalling, but what happened directly before the incident was equally appalling. He locked eyes with mine to ensure that I was watching almost as if he was showing off. I asked myself where this violence was coming from. The incident enlightened me to the complex environment that the children in Gugulethu live in. As I spent more and more time with the children, they would go into detail about the gang across the street, the girl they witnessed being raped, a parent abusing alcohol or just general acts of violence. If the violence was not at home, it was at school, if it was not at school it was in the community. This research focuses on how children develop resilience in the face of these hardships and trauma that are
present in their homes and Gugulethu.
In both the hard and soft sciences resilience as a concept has been utilized. Resilience as defined by this research states (Resilience Research Centre, 2016):
In the context of exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their well-being, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided in culturally meaningful ways
In recent years, research in the fields of psychology, international development and many other areas of study have been giving resilience more attention to understanding how individuals and communities overcome hardships (Barrett & Constas, 2014, p. 14625). By understanding how individuals and communities can overcome trauma, resilience aids to reduce the impact of the future shock. In resilience research, much of the literature is generated in the global north resulting in research that is framed from a Western perspective (Theron, 2012). Consequently, resilience defined from a non-Western context is under-researched and little attention has been paid to the role of culture concerning resilience. This research pays close attention to ubuntu in South Africa in an attempt to address this gap in resilience research. Ubuntu adds context that is unique to South Africa and connects the research to an aspect of South African culture. Ubuntu is a philosophy and worldview that believes that humanity is interconnected. Using a combination of social ecology, agency, and ubuntu this research attempts to answer the following research question: how does ubuntu support vulnerable children in South Africa's township of Gugulethu in exercising their agency and through exercising their agency develop resilience [when viewing resilience
Outline of Chapters
This thesis will start by discussing theories and concepts and their role in the research. Next, this thesis provides the reader with a contextual background of the field. The contextual background is followed by an outline of the research design and analysis of the data in empirical the chapters. This paper will conclude with answering the research question and discussing future steps for resilience research. The theoretical and conceptual framework for this thesis focuses on social ecology, resilience, agency, and ubuntu. Social ecology serves as the main theory used for this research. Social ecology provides a lens through which resilience, agency, and ubuntu are examined. The contextual background provides details on the current socioeconomic environment in South Africa, highlighting elements in Gugulethu that support resilience in children. The chapter on research design outlines this research ontological and epistemological stance. This chapter also details the methods used to carry out the data collection process. The empirical chapters analyze and interpret the data. It is in the empirical chapters that the research question is addressed and answered. The thesis concludes by summarizing what was learned and discussing gaps in the research that can be addressed in future studies.
Chapter 2: Conceptual and
Theoretical Framework
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
The literature surrounding resilience and resilience research is often framed from a Western perspective. Consequently, non-western perspectives are under research and not adequately addressed. This study attempts to address this gap in the research. This study uses the following theories and concepts: social ecology, resilience, ubuntu, and agency to aid in dealing with the research gap.
Social ecology serves as the main theory behind this research. Social ecology works in two ways. First, the social ecological framework will act as the basis for the conceptual framework. Second, social ecology emphasizes the importance of environment in an individual's ability to develop. The focus on environment helps to position this research within the context of South Africa. Furthermore, it provides a lens through which resilience, agency, and ubuntu can be examined. As the primary focus of this research surrounds resilience, it is important to understand how resilience has developed and how social science research uses resilience. For this reason, the theoretical framework includes resilience. Ubuntu, as a cultural element in South Africa, has been incorporated to help frame the research from a South African perspective. The research utilizes agency as agency is a pre-condition for resilience.
Each section begins by providing a background to the concept or theory. Next, each section explains how different fields of study have added to the understanding of the concept or claimed the concept to mold it to a particular study. The exception to this being ubuntu where the focus is not on how it is used in different fields, but instead how it relates to South Africa and South African culture. Along the way, the theoretical framework will address the importance of each concept for this research. The chapter will conclude with an explanation of the conceptual scheme and its purpose for the research.
Social Ecology
By using social ecology, this research can examine how children develop resilience from different perspectives. Within a child's environment, many factors such as family and community affect the development process. Through using social ecology, these levels can be examined individually to understand how each level contributes to resilience.
This section will introduce the history behind social ecology to understand social ecology as a theory. The basis for social ecology follows the principles of ecology. Ecology examines the relationship between an organism and its perspective environment (Lejano & Stokols, 2013, p. 2). Social ecology applies this principle to human communities. To adapt ecology to human communities, German ecologist Ernst Haeckel used the three phases of life-course, (1) youth/adolescence, (2) adulthood/maturity, (3) age/decline (Müller, 2015, p. 263). In this regard, the makeup of a community follows this life cycle and moves through a period of growth, stability, and finally decline. This form of social ecology can also be referred to as human ecology a term linked to the University of Chicago (The Chicago School of Sociology1). The Chicago School contributed to the development of social ecology by coining the concept symbolic interactionism (Lejano & Stokols, 2013, p. 2). Within a given environment the developing individual will interact with its surroundings. These interactions are symbolic and aid in developing social standards. These social rules later play a role in
how people behave (Müller, 2015, p. 266). Moreover, these symbolic interactions shape an individual's personality within a given society. The study of social ecology expanded by borrowing concepts from anthropology, psychology, and ethical philosophy.
Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological system theory provides another approach to understand social ecology. Bronfenbrenner believed that human development could only be understood by examining the social ecology environment where growth occurs (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 16). Studying human development through the lens of Bronfenbrenner focuses on two propositions. First, development takes place through a set of complex reciprocal interactions. This scheme is similar to the Chicago Schools concept of symbolic interactionism. Bronfenbrenner names these interactions as proximal interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p. 37). The developing individual, in the case of this research the child, is the center of these processes. The second propositions concern the nature of the proximal processes. Form, power, content, and direction of the proximal processes vary systematically these methods work in conjunction with the characteristics of the developing individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p. 37). Based on his beliefs, Bronfenbrenner developed a multi-scalar approach to studying social ecology that consisted of five systems: microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems. macrosystems, and chronosystems. Image 1 illustrates Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system’s model.
Image 1 Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Model
family and school (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25). The third system is the exosystem, it is the linkages taking place between two or more settings where at least one does not involve the developing individual; for example, the relationship between the home environment and the parent’s workplace (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25). The macrosystem pertains to the overarching patterns of the mirco, meso, and exosystems of a given culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 26). Finally, there is the chronosystem, which is the system that is the furthest away from the development person. The chronosystem encompasses change over time; for example, changes that may occur in the family structure over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, p. 37).
The social ecological framework as used by the World Health Organization (WHO), follows the same multi-scalar approach as Bronfenbrenner’s. Both use interrelated systems to determine factors that contribute to development. The social ecological framework employed by WHO, however, is used to understand how abusive behavior is perpetrated. The framework examines the interrelationship between individuals, relationships, community, and society. Each one is overlapping with one another to illustrate how factors on one level influence factors on another level (World Health Organization [WHO] 2002). Image 2 shows how the World Health Organization conceptualizes the framework. The first level is the individual. This level identifies biological and personal history factors that leave individuals vulnerable to violence or becoming a perpetrator of violence (WHO, 2002). Young men who witnessed spousal abuse where the mother was the victim are more likely to repeat such behavior (Hong, Kral, Espelage, & Allen-Meares, 2012, p. 433). The second level, relationships, examines close relationships that increase the likelihood of experiencing violence or being a perpetrator. The third level, community, explores public settings; such as schools, to examine social relationships to identify the characteristics of these settings that are associated with becoming violent (WHO, 2002). The final level, societal, considers overarching factors in society that aid in creating a climate of violence. For example, the socialization of gender that reinforces masculinity endorses the use of power and control in relationships. In return, these gender stereotypes uphold gender inequality and legitimize violence against women (Hong, et al., 2012, p. 446).
Image 2 WHO's Social Ecological Framework2
Social Ecological Framework and This Research
Building onto the social ecological framework this research uses a multi-scalar approach to understanding resilience in children. By using this framework, this research aims to understand how relationships in a child’s life work in concert to aid or hinder the development of resilience. The model created by the World Health Organization provides a balanced approach to ensure that nothing is "forgotten." This framework is critical, as different layers will affect an individual differently. Each layer will also pose its risk factors and protective factors and these risk factors and protective factors will be present in varying degrees. Since the framework is a tool to identify areas that contribute to violent behavior, it can also be a tool for prevention. The framework concentrates on violent behavior and does not pay much attention to how each layer can lead to other forms of behavior or psychological conditions. The framework provides an apt starting point for studying human behavior but needs to be adapted depending on the issue. By using the social ecology framework, this research could explore risk factors and protective factors in a child's life through each level.
Resilience
Resilience much like social ecology has roots in many fields and has been adapted to suit various areas of study. Though the hard sciences primarily used resilience, it is currently applied in the soft sciences to develop different fields. Subsequently, this research paper draws on the origins of resilience and its current use in psychology and international development. The result is a definition of resilience for this research.
The word itself comes from the Latin verb resilire, which means to rebound or bounce back (Theron, Liebenberg, & Ungar, 2015, p. 4). In the hard sciences, resilience is used to define a property of metal. Metal is “resilient” if it can return to its original form. In Ecology, resilience is used to describe how well ecological systems can maintain its function when dealing with disturbances. These definitions of resilience are grounded in the natural sciences and lack a human component. They focus on inanimate objects that lack agency and have no aspirations for an improved standard of existence beyond their current and initial state (Barrett et al., 2014, p. 14,625). Just as the field of ecology was adapted to study human communities, the same occurred in the study of resilience.
Resilience, as viewed from a Psychological perspective, can be a natural starting point for understating resilience. The American Psychology Association (APA) defines resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, threat, or any other significant source of stress (2016). Viewing resilience through a psychological lens is keen to seeing resilience as a form of positive coping. That is developing skills that will lead to positive outcomes despite facing challenges while simultaneously avoiding negative paths linked to risks. Naturally, the psychological definition focuses on the individual. This definition also provides indicators that can be used to support resilience, while providing tools for measuring resilience. These signs include self-efficacy, emotional and cognitive control, adaptability, tenacity, and goal orientation (Poole, Dobson, & Pusch, 2017, p. 90).
definition for international development can be difficult. Nonetheless, the field of International Development is using the concept of resilience with more frequency (Barrett et al., 2014, p. 14625). In International Development, resilience is the ability of individuals to adapt to shock and stress, while transforming their communities to withstand future stress (United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2016). Resilience aims to be multidisciplinary to understand risk factors associated with development such as poverty, climate change or regime shifts. The goal of understanding these risk factors is to better aid individuals to avoid them in the face of various stressors.
Protective factors and risk factors also play a role in resilience when studying the subject. There have been a number of studies that have identified these risk factors and protective factors (Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012, p. 2298; Werner, 1995, p. 82; Smith & Carlson, 1997, p. 234; Tol, Song & Jordans, 2013, p. 445; Theron, Liebenberg, & Ungar, 2015; Ungar, 2012). This section will briefly explore some these risk factors and protective factors. Protective factors as defined by Michael Rutter refer to “influences that modify, ameliorate, or alter a person’s response to some environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive outcome” (Rutter, 1985, p. 600). It is widely held that individual attributes in children, environment, and resources within the family are moderating influences (Smith et al., 1997, p. 238). Individual attributes related to resilience revolve around a child’s temperament or disposition. Bond with a caregiver, sociability; positive emotional regulation, problem-solving skills, and self-efficacy are but a few (Smith et al., 1997, p. 234; Zolkoski, 2012, p. 2298). Within the family, these protective factors include extended family, support within family, family rituals, values, and beliefs, financial stability, and close attachment relationship (Theron et al., 2015, p. 9). Within the environment or community some of these protective factors include: roles models outside of the family, religious and spiritual organizations, recreational facilities, safety of the psychical environment, accessibility to health and legal services and financial opportunity (Theron et al., 2015, p. 9; Zolkoski et al., 2012, p. 2298; Werner, 1995, p. 82). Protective factors are dependent on the presence of risk factors.
Risk factors are those associated with an increased chance of adverse outcomes for an individual or group of people (Theron et al., 2015, p. 6). Like protective factors, risks factors depend on the individual and community. These risk factors associated with individuals include low birth weight, cognitive deficits, and physical and emotional problems (Zolkoski et al., 2012, p. 2295-96). While environmental factors include: poverty, education level of parents, family conflict, minority status, and adverse life experiences (Zolkoski et al., 2012, p. 2296).
With the study of resilience, various models have been developed to explain the resilience process. There are person-focused models, which like the name suggests, an individual is the primary focus of analysis (Theron, Liebenberg & Ungar, 2015, p. 11). Resilience models also include what is called variable-focused models. This model uses multivariate statistics to test how risks, resources, and potential mediators or moderators of risk may contribute to adaptive outcomes (Theron et al., 2015, p. 12). This research focuses on two particular resilience models, the protective-stabilizing model, and the challenge model. The protective-stabilizing model of resilience refers to the phenomenon where protective factors neutralize the effects of risk factors (Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012, p. 2299).
Where the protective factor is present, there is a decrease in negative adaptive outcomes and vice versa. In the challenge model, a risk factor is treated as a potential enhancer so long as the amount of stress is not extreme (Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012, p. 2299). This research examined the presence of these risk factors and protective factors. Paying close attention to how ubuntu and community factors acted as protective factors for children. These protective factors and risk factors build on how different models of resilience are used to measure resilience.
The Definition of Resilience
The definition of resilience was tailored to human communities, for various reasons. First, measuring how individuals "bounce back" places undue focus on the individual (Ungar, 2012, p. 13). Which leads to the second reason, putting too much emphasis on the individual's ability ignores the fact that a developing person's growth is a product of their environment. Instead, resilience like growth should be examined from a multi-scalar approach. Third, some of these definitions lack nuance. There are no measurements to determine if proper adaptation occurs after the introduction of a disturbance.
For the purpose of this research the definition given by the Resilience Research Center (RRC) as used Dr. Michael Ungar, Co-Director of the RRC explains resilience in the following manner (Resilience Research Centre, 2016):
1. The capacity of individuals to navigate their ways to resources that sustain their well-being.
2. The capacity of individual’s physical and social ecologies to provide those resources.
3. The capacity of individuals, their families, and communities to negotiate culturally meaningful ways to share resources.
This definition of resilience is used as it embedded within the social ecological framework. By integrating the definition in the social ecological framework, it gives attention to an individual's environment. This definition does not place too much focus on the individual and incorporates families and communities into the resilience process. Finally, it provides tools to measure if a person has adapted to disturbance by seeing if they can find resources.
Agency
The role of agency for this research is to examine how children in Gugulethu enact their agency to develop their resilience. Resilience as defined by Dr. Michael Ungar places emphasis on an individual’s ability to navigate and negotiate for resources (Resilience Research Centre, 2016). These two key elements highlight agency as a necessity for resilience (Winsor and Skovdal, 2011, p. 434). They are essential as it shows that resilience needs a catalyst to drive it forward. Agency as a catalyst for change is best explained through social ecology. As previously mentioned, the hard sciences first applied ecology to their field
problem with placing agency in the hands of children is that children are often seen as passive agents or recipients. In that view, children fully develop agency once they reach adulthood. However, for this research, it is important to establish that children are social actors with their own strategies, priorities, and aspirations (Biggeri, Ballet, and Comim, 2011, p. 22). To better understand agency, this research views agency as a combination of ability, desire, and knowledge. To understand how ability, knowledge, and desire contribute to agency this research explores agency through the psychology of Albert Bandura's cognitive social theory and Amartya Sen's capabilities approach. Bandura’s cognitive social theory touches on how children gain knowledge. This research uses Sen’s capabilities approach to address ability and desire.
For this research, Albert Bandura's cognitive social theory provides
a lens in which to view agency. The cognitive social theory is approached from the perspective of agency. An agent can "influence one owns functioning and events that affect one's life" (Bandura, 2008). The theory also explains that there is a social component to agency that influences the behavior and thought process of an individual. The theory is employed to understand how society shapes a person and their actions as an agent. Bandura's social cognitive theory also serves as a reminder of Bronfenbrenner's ideas of development. Both believed that environment has the power to influence an individual and their environment. To reach this conclusion, the two scholars used different approaches. Bronfenbrenner recognized the importance of various social actors and their relationship to an individual’s development. Bandura examined how these social actors work to shape an individual.
In Bandura’s theory, human functioning is the result of “triadic reciprocal determination” (Bandura, 2008). Self, society and personal factors interact to influence each other. These interactions can function due to the human ability for symbolization. Symbolization is a powerful tool that allows individuals to make sense of their environment. Symbolization can also be used to understand symbolic interactionism better. In social ecology, symbolic interactionism also uses symbolization. Bandura’s use of symbolization aids in explaining what symbols are when studying symbolic interactionism. The use of symbolization enables individuals to create ideas that go beyond sensory experiences. The ultimate goal of symbolization is to aid a person in their understanding of their environment. During social interactions, symbolic interactionism utilizes symbolization. Based off of the symbols created during these periods of interaction, individuals begin to understand their surroundings and appropriate behavior patterns. In social cognitive theory, modes of learning shape behavior and thought.
Bandura cites two modes of learning, social modeling, and direct experiences. Where direct experiences depend on trial and error learning, social modeling relies on a form of observational learning (Bandura, 2008). With "extensive modeling in the symbolic environment," values, ideas, lifestyles, and belief systems are learned. The main lesson to be learned from Bandura's theory is the realization that individuals are not autonomous. Since individuals are not independent beings, agency in the cognitive social model has three forms: individual, proxy, and collective. All three play a role in this research. The primary focus is on individual agency and how children take control of their environment to wield influence. Individual agency is a contrast to agency by proxy. When dealing with children, they hand
over their agency to an adult most likely a parent. It becomes the duty of the adult to exercise agency on behalf of children. For this research, the adult is not always in a position to exercise this agency for children. How children use their agency when forced to manage without a proxy is a concern for this research. Lastly, there is collective agency. For this research, collective agency is viewed similarly as collectivist philosophy such as ubuntu. Agency is developed with the aid of a child's environment be it individual agency, proxy agency, or collective agency. Bandura's social cognitive theory works in conjunction with social ecology. However, Bandura's theory builds on the social ecological framework to address how children gain knowledge. The purpose of Bandura's theory is to understand what in a child's environment they can use to gain knowledge whether it is through symbolism or direction experiences.
This research also uses Amartya Sen's capabilities approach to study agency as his approach represents ability. Sen like Bandura uses agency and individuals as agents as a basis for his concept. Sen (2000) defines agency as someone whose actions can bring about change and who can be judged regarding his or her values and objects. Sen's definition of an agent, however, does not specify the role of agency in the lives of children. Bandura also does not draw distinctions between agency in adults and children except to say that children exercise their agency through proxy. For this research, it is essential to understand that children are capable of using their agency to bring about intentional change. They have the ability to expresses themselves, their views, their values, and priorities (Biggeri et al. 2011, p. 22). Resilience takes some level of agency. It takes both the ability to improve one's current situation but to pursue the resources needed to do so. The idea of ability leads to the use of Sen's capabilities approach. Using Sen's capabilities approach gives individuals the ability to, "lead the kind of life they value and have reason to value" (Sen, 2000, p. 9). There are various unfreedoms, as Sen would call them, in the lives of the children in Gugulethu, but development at its core should be used to give individuals more freedoms (Sen, 2000, p. 10). And through the acquisition of these freedoms people can expand their capabilities. This thesis uses Sen and his views on agency and capability as Sen places importance on ability. Sen also recognizes the lack of freedoms individuals face in their lives but also acknowledges an individual's power to change. Resilience seeks to measure individual's ability to overcome these unfreedoms. Likewise, the acquisition of power is keen to the acquisition of resources in resilience.
Ubuntu
The use of ubuntu for this research is three-fold. First, it is used to examine how it can be utilized as a protective factor for children living in Gugulethu. Second, ubuntu grounds the research within a particular cultural aspect that is unique to South Africa. The literature pointed to a greater need for resilience to find linkages to culture. Ubuntu serves as a link to South African culture. Finally, ubuntu is also useful when studying concepts within social ecology such as symbolic interactionism. As the concept states human behavior in social
society. Third, ubuntu is placed inside the social ecological framework at the societal level, and as such it is used to examine how it aids or prevents risk factors in Gugulethu.
Historically, ubuntu has been seen in written text since at least 1846 (Mboti, 2015, p. 126). However, it is the more recent use of the word that is the focus of this research. Between 1993 and 1995, the aphorism umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu was first used to describe ubuntu (Gade, 2011, p. 300). Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu translates from Zulu into English, “A person is a person through other persons.” An English version of this proverb is I am because we are. Ubuntu is now connected to the philosophy that a person is a person through other individuals regardless of belief that ubuntu is a human quality, African Humanism, philosophy, an ethic, or worldview (Gade, 2011, p. 300). It is here that the research picks up the philosophy to examine the ideas of interconnected humanity. Ubuntu at its roots can be seen as a communitarian philosophy in that the “construction of the individual moral agent [is] necessarily embedded in a network of relationships” (Oyowe, 2013, p. 105). One-way to define ubuntu is “respect for difference and compassion for all” (Rankin, 2000, p. 50). Though useful, this definition glances over the collectivist nature of ubuntu. Another definition drives ubuntu towards community and togetherness. Archbishop Desmond Tutu in his book No Future Without Forgiveness explains ubuntu as "My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours. 'We belong in a bundle of life. We say, ‘A person is a person through other persons.'" (Desmond Tutu as cited in Marston, 2015, p. 424). Desmond Tutu uses strong language such as inextricably to highlight that it is impossible to divorce oneself from humanity.
Conceptual Model
Figure 1 Conceptual Scheme based on Social Ecological Framework
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual scheme used for this research. The conceptual scheme shows a process where ubuntu affects the community of Gugulethu, the community relations in Gugulethu go on to affect agency. The result of this process builds resilience in children. The conceptual model also illustrates the interconnected nature of a child's environment. The
following section outlines how ubuntu, Gugulethu, and agency work in the social ecological framework and how they are going to be used for this research.
Social Ecology and Ubuntu
Ubuntu rests at the outmost layer of the scheme, which represents the society in the social ecological framework. Thus ubuntu accounts for a societal norm. First, it is best to understand why ubuntu was chosen to represent South African society. South Africa is a diverse country with 11 official languages and many ethnicities. Using ubuntu allowed for a clear cultural phenomenon that could be studied in a country as diverse as South Africa. As a cultural phenomenon, it could also be used see how it influences expected behaviors among members of a community. Based off of the literature from the theoretical framework on ubuntu and how it is practiced it has the potential to shape individual behavior. This research spent time learning how the participants viewed and identified ubuntu in their lives and in the community to understand how influential ubuntu can be. The social ecological framework is concerned with what at each level leads to the perpetration of violent behavior. For this research, I am concerned with how ubuntu can result in resilience in children. This could be done when ubuntu has seen a protective factor. Ubuntu as a protective factor naturalizes the harsh environment in which the children live. This will be further elaborated on in Chapter 5. Finally, the framework looks at how each level interrelates with one another. Ubuntu has a reciprocal relationship with communities as illustrated n Figure 1. Ubuntu as a societal norm outlines how people should exhibit behavior and the type of behavior that represents ubuntu. However, members of the community uphold the philosophy by practicing it in their everyday lives.
Social Ecology and Gugulethu
Gugulethu has multiple roles in the social ecological framework and thus has multiple roles when it comes to resilience in children. To study Gugulethu at the community level, two actions occurred. First, risk factors and protective factors were identified. Second, community actors were recognized that perpetuated these risk factors such as crime or gang activity and those that promoted protective factors. By following these two steps, this research could identify what in the community encouraged resilience in children and how. Chapter 6 will delve more in depth on how Gugulethu contributed to resilience in children.
Social Ecology and Agency
Agency is placed at the individual level of the social ecological framework. The remaining three layers (relationships, community, and society) are nested around the individual. Examining the framework in this manner explores how the individual interacts with his or her surroundings. To explore different factors within the framework, the model considers biological factors and personal history; this includes age or education. This research uses agency as an individual attribute that came be used as a precondition for resilience. Likewise, there are different factors that this study uses to examine agency. These
adults to express their agency. In this regard, agency is connected to the next layer in the social ecological framework.
Ontology: Constructivism
The foundation for this research is grounded in the belief that reality is socially constructed and that reality is dependent on the observer to define and give meaning to reality. To better understand this view I use constructivist ontology. In constructivism, social phenomena and their significance are being accomplished by social actors and are under a constant state of revision (Bryman, 2012, p. 34). This research believes that the development of resilience takes place within an individual's social environment. As such it is important to understanding the role of social actors and community on resilience and the meaning they give to their reality.
Epistemology: Interpretivism
This research emphasizes the nature of subjectivity as the basis for how knowledge is acquired. As such it is embedded in a post-positivism epistemological stance. This research also believes that there are multiple "truths" and though the telling of these "truths" the research can come to an understanding of the research participant’s reality. Within the paradigm of post-positivist, this research follows an interpretivist epistemology. Interpretivism requires the social scientist to understand the subjective meaning behind social action (Bryman, 2012). Interpretivism and this research use symbolic interactionism to understand how individuals come to understand the meaning behind social action. This research recognizes that the symbols people come in contact with have no meaning until the subject ascribes meaning to the symbol. These meanings can change depending on the subject who views the symbol (Dennis & Smith, 2015, p. 352). Such is the case with ubuntu. Ubuntu is a character or symbol used in South African culture to represent, humanity and respect for others. It's meaning; however, can change depending on the subject. For example, greeting someone of the street is an example of ubuntu, but ubuntu can also mean sharing one's food. This research examined how children defined ubuntu and reviewed how ubuntu is a tool to drive particular social action. Ubuntu is philosophy that is widely used and socially reinforced. Behavior that follows the philosophy of ubuntu is loving, empathic, and respectful. This research supports an interpretivism epistemology as a way of understanding ubuntu and though this knowledge of ubuntu develop an understanding of how children develop resilience. While constructivist is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction, interpretivist is concerned with the meaning individuals to ascribe to symbols.
Methodology
To better understand the reality in Gugulethu, the system of methods used favored qualitative methods. Using more qualitative methods better supports the epistemological and ontological stance for this research. The qualitative methods used gave the research participants more opportunities to explain their life in Gugulethu. The result was an exchange between theory and practice. The semi-structured interviews and group interviews were flexible enough to give the research participants the opportunity to lead the conversation. The exchange between theory and practice work in concert to better aid children in how to develop resilience. As the research took place at a center for children in Gugulethu, the center can use the information gathered to better aid the children at the center. In the concluding chapter of this thesis, I outline how the findings from the research can translate into practical
ideas for the children at the center. The total number of participants cannot be used to extrapolate to the larger population of Gugulethu, taking into consideration the small sample size. As a result, the quantitative method utilized for the research was put in place to support the qualitative methods.
Mixed Method Design
This research initially followed a convergent parallel design to collect data. Both qualitative data and quantitative data are collected simultaneously in a convergent parallel design. Using this method neither form of data takes precedence over the other. While in the field this model of data collecting was substituted for a sequential research design. Overall, this research had more qualitative data than quantitative. As a result, the qualitative data played a greater role in this research than the quantitative data. Furthermore, the dataset for the quantitative data is small; as a result, the quantitative data serves as a way for measuring resilience and supports the qualitative data. In the sequential design, the data collecting process took place in steps. The quantitative data was collected first followed by the qualitative data. This process allowed me to work with the children, aged 6 to 12 before I moved onto working with the adults. I used qualitative methods exclusively when working the adult participants. I used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods when working with children. The use of a sequential design proved to be more advantageous as I had less time with the children to conduct my research. They, of course, attended school and I had no access to them while they were attending school. Instead, I only saw them when they came to the center. Moreover, their time at the center came to an end before mine. I stayed at the center until December 14th while their final day was December 9th. My time was further limited due to the center closing at 5 o’clock, which left me with an hour and thirty minutes each day to collect data with the children.
Figure 3 New Sequential Research Designs
The Methods
Figure 3 outlines when each method was conducted. This section briefly introduces each method. The first step to the data collection process was preparing the survey. The survey preparation entailed taking the pre-existing survey and adapting it to the context of South Africa. After completing the survey preparation, I administered the survey. The Children and Youth Resilience Measurement (CYRM) survey is a three-part questionnaire used to measure levels of resilience in children and youth. This research used the CYRM survey as it addressed each layer of the social ecological framework. Next, the photo elicitation process took place. Photo elicitation is a qualitative research method where images are used to elicit a response from research participants. The use of art allows children to be in control and permits them to express themselves creatively however they deem fit. Art becomes a tool for communication. Children do not yet have abstract linguist capabilities, but they are capable of symbolic communication methods such as drawing (Farokhi, & Hashemi, 2011, p. 2220). The images were later utilized during the semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews comprised of a topic list instead of a list of questions. Each interview developed a distinct structure depending on the research participant. Finally, I conducted group interviews. Group interviews are similar to focus groups, however, during focus groups one topic of discussion is explored in depth, while group interviews explore multiple issues in a group setting (Bryman, 2012, p.213). The format of the group interviews and semi-structured interviews allowed for the process to flow more like a conversation and the participants especially the children could lead the interview. The group interviews, in particular, allowed me to discuss the research with a larger number of participants than the one on one interviews. Furthermore, the conversations in the group interviews dealt with community issues, as such it made more sense to discuss the topics in a group acting as a quasi-community.
Figure 3 also outlines how the data collecting process was carried out. The quantitative data (CYRM survey) was prepared by adding additional questions. I administered the survey with the aid of a translator. Next, the photo elicitation phase took place. The children were given a sketchpad and drawing utensils and week to produce art. Once the sketchpad was returned I conducted a semi-structured interview with the aid of a
translator. Once the interviews were completed, I conducted three group interviews with community-based workers and social workers. The group interviews concluded the data-collecting portion of my research.
Qualitative Data: Interviews, Photo Elicitation, and Group Interviews
As stated above, I conducted research with the children first due to the limited amount of time spent with them. The qualitative data collection process took place in two phases. The children participated in a photo elicitation process, and I later conducted semi-structured interviews. Once this was completed, I conducted group interviews with social workers and community-based workers. In total there was fourteen semi-structured interviews and eighteen participants who took part in three group interviews.
Photo Elicitation
Photo elicitation is a research method that uses photography or other images to elicit a response from the research participant. Each child was given a sketchpad and a packet of crayons, colored pencils or markers, and short directions to complete the photo elicitation process. They were given a week to create art based off of the following questions, which were translated into isiXhosa3 while in the field:
• Draw your family • Draw your community
(Gugulethu)
• Who makes you strong • What makes you strong
• What does ubuntu mean to you
The children performed this stage of the research at home. Allowing them to take the art supplies home gave them time to answer the questions without feeling rushed and in the setting of their choice. However, allowing the children to take the art supplies home also ran the risk of them forgetting to bring it back. Such was the case with two participants. There were also issues with the instructions, instead of drawing a picture for each question some children chose to write out their answers. The answers that were given were still used, but expanded upon during the interviews. Ultimately, the photos aided in guiding the interviews and ensured that specific topics were discussed. With the photos on hand, the researcher sits Image 3 Example of art produced from photo elicitation. Image 3 depicts a drawing from an 11-year-old girl. The drawing is in response to the question what does ubuntu mean to you. She drew herself helping someone to cross the street.
Semi- Structured Interviews
Semi-structure interviews followed the photo elicitation process. The semi-structured interviews allow the child to lead the conversation and are open to discussing any issue if they choose. For my semi-structured interviews, I used broad categories. These categories included: Self, family, friends, ubuntu, and community. The interviews always started with the children telling me a little bit about themselves. Then we went through the images they created. The children explained what they created and why. Additional questions were added to address certain issues that were not covered in the photo elicitation process. These included:
• What does your (mother, father, aunt, uncle, etc.) do to help you to become strong?
• How do you show others respect (ubuntu)? • How do you feel about Gugulethu?
• How do you solve your problems?
The semi-structured interviews took place at Ikamva Labantu's Rainbow Centre in Gugulethu. These interviews were conducted with the aid of a translator and took anywhere from 25 to 45 minutes depending on the child. I recorded each interview with the aide of an app on my cell phone. Recording the data surprisingly worked better than taking handwritten notes. Some children were wary of me taking notes, while the app on my phone was just another cell phone to them. If this was the case, I took fewer notes during the interview. During the interviews, some children were surprisingly candid although in other settings they seemed to be shyer. While some children were very guarded with their answers and it took more effort to get them to open up.
Groups Interviews
In total, I conducted three group interviews. The first two were conducted with a total of fifteen community-based workers and the third with a group of three social workers. The group interviews with the community-based workers took place at Ikamva Labantu's Rainbow Centre. The group interview with the social workers took place at the University of the Western Cape. These group interviews took anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half. The group interview with the social workers took the most time. These interviews were conducted in English. The group interviews covered a number of topics including ubuntu, the community, children's rights, and resilience. These group interviews were essential in supplementing the data received from child participants. The interviews also provide answers to the research question and sub-questions that could not be answered by younger participants. The group interviews all had a distinct characteristic, but for the most part, they followed a similar pattern. The discussion always started by defining ubuntu and what are means for the community and children. A large proportion of the group interviews focused on ubuntu. The discussion usually moved on to how the community and community actors handle neglect and the role of formal institutions such as the police. The group interviews then conclude with a discussion about children's agency and their resiliency. The following are a sample of questions that were used for the group interviews.
• How does ubuntu strengthen Gugulethu’s community, if at all?
• What role does the community/ubuntu play when you see children harmed? • In your opinion, how effective is current legislation in South Africa in
protecting children from neglect?
• How does the community take care of children when the government is unable to do so?
• How do children gain access to resources?
Quantitative Data: Child and Youth Resilience Measurement
The quantitative portion of this research was out in the form of a questionnaire. The Resilience Research Centre, a Canadian-based research center, developed the questionnaire. The Children and Youth Resilience Measurement is a 28-question survey that measures resilience in children and youth aged 5-30. The questionnaire has three forms. The first form is designed for children aged 5-9. The second is intended for youth aged 10-23. The final form is designed for youth aged 24 and above. For this research, the first two forms were used. The Resilience Research Centre recommends a particular method for administering the questionnaire. A such, this study followed their recommended steps, which are as followed:
1. Establish a community advisory committee. The community advisory consists of community members that give input on how the research should be implemented. Furthermore, the committee can offer suggestions on contextually relevant ways to conduct the study and site-specific questions that can be added to the CYRM. The advisory committee consisted of the community-based workers that within Gugulethu and at the center. Before starting the data collection process, I sat done with them to discuss the nature of the research. It was followed up by a focus group interview to prepare for step two.
2. Prepare the CYRM for local use. Preparing the CYRM for local use includes conduction focus group interviews. The focus group interviews are meant to produce ten additional questions for the CYRM that are unique to the local context and the experiences of children. After incorporating the additional questions, select the appropriate version of the CYRM. The CYRM comes in two versions a 28-question survey and a shorter version, which consists of only 12 questions. The children's version (age 5-9) also uses smiley faces, "resilience monkeys," or a numbered likert scale as multiple-choice options. It is up to the researcher to determine which version to use. In the focus group interview, we discussed the needs of children and what resources they need to become successful adults in Gugulethu. The focus group interview produced the following ten questions:
• I feel pressure to do things I do not want to do by my friends • I eat well (I eat fruits and vegetables)
• I have a sense of belonging in my community (Gugulethu)
• I have good personal hygiene (bath, brush my teeth, and wash my clothes
• I know about the life-skills that I need to be a successful adult
This research used the 28-question survey for both age groups (5-9 and 10-23). The children answered the questions using the likert scale.
3. Administer the CYRM. The CYRM is done individually with the guidance of the researcher while the questions are read to the child. Doing the survey with the child ensures that each child understands the survey questions. The survey has three parts. The first part dealt with demographics. The second part consisted of the ten questions developed in the field. The last section consisted of the 28 questions on resilience. The surveys were not translated into isiXhosa instead; I conducted the surveys with the aid of a translator. Each questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. In total, there 14 surveys were completed.
Ethical Considerations
Social research working with children poses an ethical dilemma that might not exist when working with adults. To deal with these ethical considerations, I used the Society for Research in Child Development's ethical standards ("Ethical Standards in Research," 2007). Using these guidelines, I planned on obtaining consent and assent while providing small incentives of candy for my research participants. While in the field I wrote a consent form for the guardians of the children I was working with and an assent form for children. An assent form is essentially a consent form for minors. It should be noted that assent forms are intended to complement not supplement consent forms from a guardian as consent of a minor can only be given by an adult over the age of eighteen. These forms were then translated into isiXhosa. The center divides the children into groups depending on age. I explained to each age group the basis of the research and what was expected of them with the aid of a translator. I gave each child an assent form and a consent form to take home. Both were returned later, signed. I only worked with the children that were able to return the signed consent form. To meet basic ethical standards for working with human participants should freely give consent and know that they are entitled to terminate their participation (Bryman, 2012, p. 134). I took the necessary step to inform my participants of their rights as research participants; however, I did not feel as if I was any closer to reaching a higher "moral" standard by doing so. I received parental consent forms from my research participants; however, there are gray areas with these forms. For example, were the signatures on the forms that of the parent or guardian and whether or not the parent or guardian was fully aware of the nature of the research i.e. did the parent or guardian read the consent form? However, I recognize it as a necessary step to move forward with this research.
Bryman also brings up the issues of deception that is presenting work "as something other than what it is" (Bryman, 2012, p. 143). The idea of deception or being deceptive was a concern of mine in the field. I often questioned how I would approach the subject of my
research when dealing with parents. It instantly comes across as accusatory to ask their permission to conduct research using their child because the child is a victim of neglect. I feared that this approach would be met with immediate hostility, as the parent would feel as if they are the abuser. I changed the language in the consent forms to "adversity at home." I also changed the language in the assent forms for the children to "hard times at home," this was done to simplify the language to a level that would be understood by young children. The nature of the research also dealt with a sensitive topic. The issue of neglect was never directly discussed with the children. Instead, the community-based workers provided me with a list of children that they believed to be struggling with the issue at home. By not discussing neglect directly gave me the opportunity to explore other aspects of the child's life while the offered up the more personal and sensitive details on their own accord. It should be noted that while in the field the focus was on children and neglect. Once I left the field, the focus expanded to view the children as part of a vulnerable population opposed to neglected children. However, neglect was still an issue the children face at home. The issue of neglect is addressed in the following chapter. Personal and sensitive issues did occur, and a number resulted in tears shed. In these situations, I found it best to stop whatever I am doing and let them cry. Also, I always had a translator with me that acted as an informal observer that could step in when the situation became stressful for the children in a manner that was both culturally appropriate and understandable to young children. Due to my close ties with the center, I plan on sending the final version of my thesis to the program manager at the center.
Methodological Limitations
This section addresses some of the limitations of this research that I discovered during the data collection process. The sample size was one of them main limitations for this research. The sample size for the surveys is relatively small. The small sample size is due to many reasons. The children either did not return their consent forms or did not wish to partake in the research. I recognized this limitation and used the surveys as a baseline for measuring resilience while complementing the surveys with other methods. Another limitation for this research surrounds measuring neglect. There was no tool to measure neglect and its extent. Instead, this research relies on the knowledge of community-based workers. An additional survey could have been added to measure neglect to strengthen this aspect of the research. Another limitation of the research was the language barrier. The data collecting process was slowed down by the need to translate many of the document used in the research. Furthermore, when conducting research with the children, a translator needed to be present. The presence of the translator meant that I was not always in control when administering the survey or when conducting interviews. The language barrier also affected the quality of the interviews. The interviews did not always flow due to the questions and answers being translated between English and isiXhosa. There is also the concern that details may have been left out in the translation process. The language barrier was also concern while administering the survey. The survey used a likert scale of yes, no, and sometimes. The
