The social in- and exclusion of vulnerable indigenous youth in Guatemala : a study of perceptions and experiences of identity from a background in care

(1)

The Social In-and Exclusion of Vulnerable

Indigenous Youth in Guatemala

A Study of Perceptions and Experiences of Identity from a Background in Care

Averill X. Z. Daly

Student number: 11209658

MSc International Development Studies University of Amsterdam (UvA)

Supervisor: Nicky R.M. Pouw Second reader: Mieke Lopes Cardozo August 2017

(2)

i

Abstract

The deconstruction of the multidimensional concept of the social in-and exclusion of indigenous youth populations from care backgrounds in Guatemala instigates the exploration of drivers of social and cultural experiences of identity. There is a gap in literature about how vulnerable indigenous youth with care backgrounds conceptualise and experience identity. Identity formation is an important aspect of growing up into adulthood, and on their way to living independently. This research problematises that many youth in and from care institutions experience distortions and delays in their identity formation, which impacts their social integration later on in life. The present study builds on to the limited primary and secondary data on youth in and from care institutions in developing countries. The primary data for this study was gathered through in-depth qualitative research, giving voice to youth’s own perspectives and experiences. Results show that the youth recognise some shared experiences, as influential to the construction of their identity, including, targeted in-and exclusion by one another, victims of language and its barriers, and familial relations and transitions when returning to home communities. They also identify barriers when defining the term indigenous and recognising ‘who is indigenous’, including the difference between implicit and explicit identity. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how vulnerable indigenous youth interact within the structure of care institutions, in particular their relationships between caregivers and their social peers in care. In conclusion, this research provides recommendations for care institutions to evaluate the effect that their process has on youth.

Key Words

Guatemala, vulnerable youth, care background, indigenous youth, cultural and social identity, social in- and exclusion.

(3)

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to give thanks to all of the people I encountered in Guatemala. Without your support and participation this thesis would not be possible. I dedicate this thesis to all of the young people who trusted me enough to share their life stories with me. First, I want to thank Aldeas Infantiles SOS Quetzaltenango for hosting me throughout my research. In particular the security guard Mari, who welcomed me as a sister and inspired me by her passion for her work. Next, I want to thank my local supervisor Jenifer González who experienced this research alongside me for six weeks and tolerated my initially flawed Spanish. Finally, I want to thank my supervisor at the University of Amsterdam, Dr Nicky Pouw, for introducing me to SOS Children’s Villages and the topic of vulnerable persons from care backgrounds. It was a privileged to work alongside the larger research project of Social In-and Exclusion

conducted by Pouw and Hodgkinson, and I greatly appreciate your guidance and support.

Quiero dar gracias a todas las personas que encontré en Guatemala. Sin su apoyo y participación esta tesis no sería posible. Dedico esta tesis a todos los jóvenes que confiaron en mí para compartir sus historias de vida. Primero, quiero agradecer a Aldeas Infantiles SOS Quetzaltenango por su hospedaje. En particular, quiero dar gracias a Mari, me acogió como una hermana y me inspiró por su pasión por su trabajo. Espero regresar algún día en el futuro.

(4)

iii

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Data Gathering and Participant Demographics Table 2 Negative Characteristics of Indigenous

Table 3 Positive Characteristics of Indigenous

Figure 1 Conceptual Scheme

Figure 2 Map of the Quetzaltenango Department, Guatemala Figure 3 Map of Aldeas Infantiles SOS in Guatemala

Figure 4 Venn diagram of Vulnerable Indigenous Youth Figure 5 Traditional Dress in Xela

Figure 6 Care Houses inside SOS Village

Figure 7 Circular Chart of Language Distribution Figure 8 Social Relational Mapping of Interactions

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Operationalisation Table

Appendix 2 Reflection ‘After the Research’

Appendix 3 Interview Questionnaire – Social Institutions Appendix 4 Interview Questionnaire – Caregivers

Appendix 5 Focus Group Discussion Guide Appendix 6 Life History Guide

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CENADOJ Centro Nacional de Análisis y Documentación Judicial – National Centre for

Judicial Analysis and Documentation EDELAC Escuela de la Calle – Street School

ENJU Encuesta Nacional de la Juventud – National Youth Survey

ENCOVI Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida 2011 – National Survey of Living

(8)

vii FFN Fundación Futuro de los Niños – Future Child Foundation

FGD Focus Group Discussion

INE Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas – National Statistics Institute

HA Hogar Abierto – Open Home

PDH Procurador de los Derechos Humanos – Attorney General of Human Rights

PGN Procuraduría General de la Nación – National Attorney General

SBS Secretaria de Bienestar Social de la Presidencia – Secretariat of Social

Welfare

SOS Aldeas Infantiles SOS – SOS Children’s Villages

(9)

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Worldwide, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim for “leaving no one behind” (UN General Assembly 2015). The goals emphasise the vulnerable groups who have been marginalised such as children, youth and indigenous peoples. The SDGs also state the importance to understand these vulnerable populations but falls short acknowledging that data and general research on these groups are sparse. While the SDGs target vulnerable groups, none of the goals pay attention to vulnerable youth in and from care institutions. Youth from care institutions deserve special recognition because they disproportionally face social inclusion. Since national statistics hide the exact numbers on how many youths have experienced care, this vulnerable population is not recognised on an international scale. As a result, this youth group is not only overlooked but also considered irrelevant, which contributes to their social and self-exclusion. The SDGs failure to recognise the population of youth who have a background in care inadvertently excludes their aim to leave no one behind, by further enabling the social exclusion of the youth from care at an international level.

This research poses questions surrounding how youth self-identify and why fewer young people are identifying as indigenous. Growing up in a country that only ceased genocide against indigenous populations two decades ago, the youth of Guatemala, in particular, indigenous young people, are an important vulnerable group to highlight. With two-thirds of Guatemala’s population projected at under the age of 30, Guatemala has a relatively young population1; and the need for their representation has never been more appropriate. 31.3% of young people self-identify as indigenous2, which is a lower than the 40% of the population identifying as indigenous at a national level (INE 2013:130).

Guatemala’s history of armed conflict drives the ongoing inequity between indigenous and non-indigenous populations, through institutional structures that disadvantage indigenous people. Guatemala is a country where “almost four out of five indigenous persons experience poverty” (INE 2015) and being indigenous predisposes populations to a higher risk than a non-indigenous person. This research identifies this predisposed risk of poverty as a possible reason why the younger populations are not identifying as indigenous. Beyond poverty, indigenous

1_{The average age of Guatemala was projected as 17 years old for five years over 2008-2012. While this median}

age is a projection, Guatemala recognised the significant portion of their population under the age of 18 with the publication of the First National Survey of Youth in Guatemala (ENJU 2011).

2_{This figure varies in Guatemalan statistics depending on how indigenous identity is characterized (INE 2013}

(10)

2 women are considered extremely vulnerable to their high rates of illiteracy. The human rights office circulates the statistic that “only three out of ten indigenous women know how to read and write” to promote awareness of violations of indigenous rights. This problem of illiteracy may be rooted in Guatemala’s government recognition of indigenous languages. Even though the state official recognises indigenous languages as an integral part of Guatemala’s multi-ethnic history3, most government systems, such as the education system, fail to incorporate indigenous languages and operate solely in Spanish.

1.1 Problem Statement and Empirical Motivation

This research focuses on the vulnerable population of indigenous youth with a care background in Guatemala. Using studies that focus on the social in-and exclusion of vulnerable groups based on their cultural and social identity (Alston and Kent 2009, Quinn 2017), this research uses the findings as a point of departure. Empirical studies on the marginalisation of indigenous youth have contributed to this research by providing evidence that these indigenous youth have a higher risk of experiencing social exclusion and self-exclusion. These two terms are interrelated, meaning that social exclusion instigates self-exclusion and vice versa (Chirwa 2002, Pouw and Hodgkinson 2016b).

At the moment, no empirical study takes the position to connect care settings as a driver of vulnerability for indigenous youth. Instead, empirical studies, in Guatemala, have solely focused on the marginalisation of indigenous populations in a post-conflict context. For this reason, this research problematises the scarcity of empirical studies on social in-and exclusion on indigenous youth and the lack of literature surrounding the reproduction of existing mechanisms of social exclusion based on identity. Currently secondary research focuses on how youth living in care, transitioning out of care and care leavers are discriminated in education policies and future employment (Barnardo’s 2006, Quinn 2017, and Frimpong Manso 2012).

With no literature accounting for this specific group: youth coming from both indigenous and care backgrounds, this research seeks to address this extremely vulnerable population. This study is empirically motivated by the lack of primary research of youth in care and intends to explore the facet of indigenous youth to complement the ongoing research conducted by Pouw and Hodgkinson (Forthcoming) on vulnerable youth from care. This explorative study hopes to contribute to literature about the adversity, such as social exclusion and self-exclusion,

(11)

3 indigenous youth in care institutions face. In conclusion, this study hopes to bridge the gap between care youth’s vulnerability (Pouw and Hodgkinson 2016a, SOS Children’s Villages International 2016, Biddulph 2006) and the dominant issue in Guatemala of vulnerability of indigenous groups (Winton 2005, Foxen 2010, Holt International 2008).

1.2 Knowledge gaps and Main Research Question

Through the review of literature in the context of Guatemala there is a focus on the representation of indigenous populations (Webber 2007) and young people in Guatemala City (Winton 2005), but no specific literature on indigenous identity or the formation of cultural, social and personal identity of youth. Furthermore, with regards to vulnerable youth and care institutions, there is a limited amount of literature that intertwines these two concepts. For that reason the following knowledge gaps have been identified:

1. Empirical evidence on indigenous populations as vulnerable youth living in care institutions and transiting out of care institutions.

2. Lack of research on how care institutions, and social institutions, positively and negatively influence the social integration of vulnerable youth from care.

3. Lack of understanding on where experiences social in-and exclusion occur for youth from a background in care and an indigenous background.

Based on these knowledge gaps, the main research question is:

1.3 Objectives and Relevance

The objective of this research is to gain insight on vulnerable indigenous youth population’s perception of cultural, social, and personal identity. In this study, vulnerable youth is defined as young people in alternative and informal care settings. More specifically, this research will focus on vulnerable indigenous youth as defined by Rasch (2012) as young people who face discriminatory factors based on their race and ethnic backgrounds. This conceptualisation of vulnerable indigenous youth as a unit of analysis has not been focused on at large, especially in the context of Guatemala. For this reason, the purpose of this research is to focus on the perspectives of indigenous young people when deconstructing the concepts social exclusion, vulnerability, and identity.

How does living in or being from care institutions shape the social in-and exclusion of vulnerable indigenous youth groups in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, and how does this, in turn, affect youth’s perceptions and experiences of cultural, social, and personal identity?

(12)

4 While there is a multitude of varying facets can influence identities, which are context specific, this research will draw on commonalities within a particular empirical case of vulnerable indigenous young people. This research understands indigenous populations are a subsection of minority groups and identifies the recurring theme that minority groups are often excluded due to ethnic relations (Velázquez Nimatun 2002 in Rasch 2012). In the context of Guatemala, there is an ethnic division between Guatemalans who are Ladino and Guatemalans who refer to themselves as Indígenas (CultureGrams 2016, Costanza 2015, Foxen 2010, Hale 2004 and Rasch 2012). Moreover, this empirical study contributes to the theoretical framework of the role and influence care institutions have towards vulnerable youth. Ultimately this research is directly beneficial for the three care centres it has worked with, proving an external reflection on each centre’s programmes. At the same time, this study hopes to instigate reflexivity for local and national policymakers who are implementing the SDGs mission ‘no one will be left behind’ (UN General Assembly, 2015).

1.4 Thesis Outline

The following chapter, the theoretical framework, outlines the major concepts of this research. The chapter positions the research within inclusive development theory and then engages with the concepts such as social in-and exclusion, vulnerable youth and the formation of identity. Due to the nature of being an explorative study, this theoretical context guides the responses of the research questions and sub-questions. Chapter three provides an overview of the research methodology and methods adopted by this study. To fully comprehend the situation of indigenous youth in care, the fourth chapter illustrates the research location, with specific attention to the historical division of and prominence of care centres in Guatemala. Chapter five, six and seven are based on the empirical data collected from the field. Chapter five explores how multi-scalar actors perceive vulnerable indigenous youth differently. Chapter six engages how experiencing care affects vulnerable youth’s formation of identity. Chapter seven examines how vulnerable youth’s experience social in-and exclusion, and how exclusion often results in self-exclusion. Chapter eight concludes this research by addressing the primary research question and provides recommendations for care and social institutions.

(13)

5

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

This chapter provides the theoretical underpinning of this research by focusing on the interconnected relationship of the key concepts highlighted in the research questions. The theoretical framework is divided into two parts: 2.1 Constructing Vulnerable Indigenous Youth and 2.2 Social In-and Exclusion and the Formation of Identity. The first section outlines how the debate on child-rights and youth defines the vulnerability of youth. Then, the second section draws on literature to explore how the formation of identity is intertwined with the drivers of social in- and exclusion. In conclusion, the conceptual scheme presents a visualisation of all the key concepts this theoretical framework addresses. But first, to discuss these identified key concepts, it is necessary to position the research within the broader international development debate of inclusive development.

The concept of inclusive development recognises three dimensions of development that international development theory historically has neglected. Inclusive development shifts the focus of the development debate away from historical prioritisation of economic development and creates a holistic approach by incorporating “social, ecological and political dimensions of development” (Gupta and Vegelin 2016:433). Most notably, inclusive development is rising to the forefront of IDS for being used as a theoretical lens to evaluate the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and question to what extent the SDGs encourage and instigate inclusiveness (Gupta and Vegelin 2016 and Gupta et al. 2014). Scholars have divided the debate of inclusive development into three areas “international development per se, inclusive development in the context of the Anthropocene and inclusive development from a relational approach” (Gupta et al. 2014:1). Grounded in two of the three principles of inclusive development, this research positions itself to initiate a discussion on how inclusive development per se and a relational perspective can be applied to the context of Guatemala. This research uses inclusive development theory as a lens to examine the inequalities in Guatemala such as the gross inequity between the rich who are typically non-indigenous and the poor who are associated with indigenous persons. Inclusive development per se emphasises the importance of “leaving ‘no one behind’” (ibid:2) by incorporating marginalised groups in the development process. This research focuses on two of the most vulnerable groups, as identified by Gupta et al. (2014), indigenous peoples and future generation – including children. Using inclusiveness per se as a guiding theory, this research draws on literature to

(14)

6 conceptualise vulnerable indigenous youth by focusing on risks and experiences of in-and exclusion that exasperate their vulnerability.

The second section of this literature review adopts a relational approach of inclusiveness to examine the causes of vulnerability and how actions taken by others impact the formation of identity. Relational inclusiveness uses a multiscalar perspective to understand how “relations between groups lead to marginalisation” (ibid:3). This research acknowledges the multiscalar nature of social and relational inclusiveness and identifies the relationships of youth with local, regional and national actors as drivers of in-and exclusion. In conclusion, this research is positioned within the larger theory of inclusive development as an exploratory empirical study to contribute to the knowledge of social and relational inclusiveness at a local and national level.

2.1 Constructing Vulnerable Indigenous Youth

To understand what makes indigenous youth vulnerable it is important to first look at what makes youth vulnerable in general. Then, by zooming in on indigenous youth, this research discerns between inequalities/exclusion that vulnerable indigenous youth face because they are youth and because they are indigenous.

2.1.1 Vulnerable Youth

The vulnerability of children has been dominating policy agendas, but currently, there is a rise of interest in issues surrounding youth. Inclusive development theory is part of what drives this increase, as leaving no one behind extends the vulnerability scope to youth. Before defining vulnerability, it is necessary to distinguish the terms child and adult, and where the term youth fits. The term youth refers to the transitional phase between childhood and adulthood (Barnados 2006, Alston and Kent 2009, Bynner 2002, Frimpong Manso 2012, Pouw and Hodgkinson 2016a). Using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guideline, SOS Children’s Villages International (2016:3) identifies children “to be anyone 18 years old or younger”. Adulthood, in general, is legally recognised by most states and unanimously interpreted throughout literature as anyone 18 years or older. Without a particular gap between these two phases, youth – also referred to as young people – are best described, using Barnardo’s (2006) conceptualisation, as to be anyone between 16-21 years old.

Many multilateral organisations propose that youth fall under the broader category of vulnerable youth groups. A major contributor of the vulnerability of youth, also commonly referred to at-risk youth in policies, is poverty. Poverty is a driver of vulnerability, and most

(15)

7 cases result in youth losing parental care and experiencing a disconnection from biological families. Another contributor to a young person’s vulnerability is the ethnic background one comes from, which is prevalent in Guatemala with a large indigenous population. Ethnicity is a driver of vulnerability because the youth are at risk of discrimination and injustices at a social institutional level. This research pays particular attention to vulnerable youth, who have experienced or are at risk of losing parental control. Since there is limited knowledge surrounding these vulnerable populations in care centres and tend not to be accounted for in social intuitional records, this research zooms in on them as the unit of analysis.

Three distinct definitions of vulnerable youth are derived from this review of the literature. At the bottom is the broadest understanding of vulnerable young people, whose vulnerability is dependent on the sole consideration of being a ‘youth’ transitioning out of childhood and towards adulthood. At the next level, vulnerable youth refers to young people who have lost or are at-risk of losing parental care, driving them into a care background. The top level focuses on indigenous youth who are in or from care backgrounds. Literature fails to identify indigenous persons in or from alternative care as a subset of vulnerable youth.

To further highlight young people living in care institutions or coming from a care background, vulnerable youth is defined as young people who have experienced care. There has been a recent turn in literature focusing on the vulnerable youth as individuals who have lost or at risk of losing parental care (SOS Children’s Villages International 2016, Barnardo’s 2006). Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 20 asserts the necessity to protect children and provide support “when they are unable to live with their parents or remain in a stable family setting” (Quinn 2017:141, UN 1989).

2.1.2 Youth in Care Institutions

This study focuses on youth who currently live in or are transitioning out of family-like alternative care provided by care institutions because they are already socially, economically and emotionally damaged. There has been growing literature surrounding the argument that a marker of vulnerability is the transitional phase and the “preparation for adulthood” (Frimpong Manso 2012:341) among youth living in care. Brynner and Parsons (2002:289) posit that there is pressure on young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially growing up with a lack of support, “when attempting to negotiate the transition from school to work”. While literature supports the vulnerability of youth from care backgrounds during this transitional

(16)

8 phase, there is still a gap in primary research on the preparations and support provided to young people (Barnado’s 2006).

Vulnerability markers are indicators of individual and external social factors that contribute to the conceptualisation of young people’s vulnerability. While all of these vulnerable youth enter institutionalised care for different reasons, they are all subjects of exasperated vulnerability. Furthermore, this research explores vulnerable young people who are currently connected to care institutions, because the only records and contact with these youth are through care centres. They become subsequently dependent upon an institutionalised care environment. Although their basic needs are provided for, it doesn’t mean all other aspects of their vulnerability are resolved.

While strides in Western literature have been made in the literature to incorporate vulnerable youth coming from care backgrounds, Frimpong Manso’s (2012) empirical study of SOS is the only study that addresses youth from care backgrounds in developing countries. The lack of specific data or statistics on how many indigenous young people are in care or from care backgrounds represents a knowledge gap. Young care leavers are nowhere to be found in national statistics; they fall off the institutional radar, and we don’t know what happens to them and how they are faring later on in life. This explorative research investigates these youth with care backgrounds by focusing on the effects of care and how being from care influences youth’s experiences of social in-and exclusion.

2.1.3 Vulnerable Indigenous Youth

In this study, indigenous youth are identified as a marginalised group who are more likely to encounter social exclusion (Alston and Kent 2009). The term vulnerable indigenous youth refers to youth who are from both indigenous and care backgrounds. This research focuses on this specific group of youth because there are multiple drivers for their vulnerability, which puts them at risk of social in-and exclusion from different facets of society.

2.2 Social In-and Exclusion and the Formation of Identity

At the centre of this research is the social exclusion of indigenous youth, because their vulnerability puts them at risk. Social exclusion is a dynamic concept that needs to be contextualised through literature and engaged in distinct contexts. Social inclusion is considered as the counterpart of social exclusion. For that reason, this research engages with literature on the concept of social inclusion and how inclusion and exclusion are intertwined.

(17)

9 To conclude, the following section introduces the direct relationship between social exclusion and self-exclusion, how both types of exclusion may lead to the other.

2.2.1 Social Exclusion

By recognising social exclusion as “the inability of people to participate in key activities in society through no fault of their own” (Burchardt 2000 in Alston and Kent 2009:93), this research can identify the drivers of social exclusion. This research draws from the findings of Alston and Kent’s (2009) case study of rural and remote young people in Australia, because the topic is under-researched in the context of Guatemala.

Using Reimer’s (2004 in Alston and Kent 2009) identification of relationships to underpin social exclusion, Alston and Kent focus on the social relations youth have with market, bureaucratic, associative and communal actors. One of the main findings of this research is that youth experience limited inclusion because of the bureaucratic structure (Alston and Kent 2009:99). This study illustrates that the inclusion of young people from rural areas rely on the government to facilitate one’s participation by making “services such as education and employment” accessible (ibid: 93). As a result of structural inequalities in the government’s infrastructure, most of the youth do not have access to resources that can improve “personal wellbeing and growth” (Remier 2004). Alston and Kent found that most of the “policies actively increase their exclusion” (Alston and Kent 2009:103). Indigenous experiences of social exclusion by institutional structures are not limited to Australia and can be transferred to other contexts.

Alston and Kent (2009:93) argue that “young people are more likely to blame themselves rather than system failure” when experiencing social exclusion. By placing the blame on the individual, institutions are not held responsible for their influence and promotion of social exclusion (Pouw, Hodgkinson and van Dam 2016). Bynner (2001) argues social exclusion currently dominates policy agendas, to bring change and reduce social exclusion. While in reality, unequal representation in social institutions often marginalises young people causing them to “slip through the cracks and become socially excluded” (Alston and Kent 2009:99). Barnado’s (2006) case study of young care leavers who are failed by the system exemplifies this conceptualisation of social exclusion. This research concludes that social exclusion is the result of system failure and the individual’s response to experiences of exclusion. For that reason, it is necessary to consider social exclusion as a relational problem between actors who cause exclusion, and the people experience exclusion.

(18)

10 The notion of social inclusion is not often debated throughout literature unless it is critiquing the failure to achieve social inclusion. The recent application of inclusive development theory to the SDGs exemplifies that social inclusion is thrown around by policy documents and agendas as an overarching goal. Quinn’s (2017:141) comparative analysis of “children in need of, and at risk of needing, alternative care”, highlights the inequity based on different phases of one’s life. He proposes that the UN Guidelines for Alternative Children uses a rights-based framework to address the social inclusion of care-leavers (Quinn 2017:150, United Nations 2008, and United Nations 2009). By focusing on children entering care, priorities children as being more vulnerable than young people. This is problematic because the actions of youth after they leave care are relatively unknown. From the few studies that focus on care leavers, they conclude that most of the youth encounter social exclusion because of being from care. For that reason, Moving Forward “indicates the need for a policy orientation around countering stigma and discrimination of children and young people who have been in care” (Quinn 2017:149). Promoting awareness of children in care is necessary to reduce stigma and discrimination against young people from care. Moving Forward sets the tone for global policy frameworks by acknowledging a group of marginalised youth who experience further social exclusion because they are overlooked.

According to SOS Children’s Village (2016), vulnerability is a driver increases the youth’s chance of experiences social exclusion. Experiences of social exclusion of vulnerable (indigenous) youth in care settings often occur when young people are transitioning out of care (Quinn et al. 2017, Frimpong Manso 2012, Barnado’s 2006, and Biddulph 2006). Building on Bynner (2001), Pouw and Hodgkinson (2016b) identify and outline the drivers of social exclusion that are relevant to research on vulnerable youth in care, such as family risks, social risks and political risks. In the context of Guatemala, family risks refer to young people who live in care institutions, social risks indicate to ethnic or indigenous discrimination, and political risks include populations who are disempowered by social structures and victims of institutional violence.

In some cases, social exclusion becomes a relational problem, rather than an absolute (Colley 2001 in Pouw and Hodgkinson 2016a). An example of this is how the experiencing social exclusion can lead youth to exclude themselves from creating relationships. Furthermore, the interaction between social exclusion and self-exclusion is a two-way street. Self-exclusion is “the process of excluding one-self from a social relation or activity” because of the anticipated exclusion (Pouw and Hodgkinson 2016b). The relationship between social exclusion and

(19)

self-11 exclusion is convoluted. It plays a role for indigenous youth because they internalise their exclusion as a problem they have created, instead of recognising that they are predisposed to the risk of social exclusion.

2.2.2 Defining Identity

Identity is a defining characteristic that “humans use to sort out themselves and their fellows, individually and collectively” (Jenkins 2008:13). Hogg (1998:2) argues that an individuals’ identity is inevitably “determined by the groups to which they feel they belong”. Thus the conception and construction of individual and collective identities are reliant on each other. Berger and Luckmann (1996:194) posit, “Identity is formed by the social process” when the individual and society interact. Furthermore, Dayton and Rogoff (2013) challenge the notion that identity, in particular cultural, is static, and push for a re-evaluation of identity as flexible. In contrast, the literature on regarding cultural and ethnic identity often highlights identity as a flexible conception that can change as a result of a process (Dayton and Rogoff 2013, Campbell 2000, Mesianas and Perez 2016). While the importance and use of identity are widely received, Brubaker and Cooper (in Jenkins 1996:14) argue that the term identity “is overused to the point of becoming almost meaningless”. For this reason, this study demonstrates the significance of identity, identity as a social construct, and positive and adverse effects of identity. This research identifies three aspects of one’s identity, cultural identity (including indigenous identity), social identity and personal identity.

Cultural Identity

Campbell (2000:31) recognises “the family unit, the peer group, the community, educational institutions, religious organisations and the mass media” as drivers for individuals developing and perceiving their cultural identity. By accepting a cultural identity as a social construction, the establishment of a person’s identity is based on the preference for “one cultural group rather than another” (ibid). Campbell is highly critical of cultural identity being a social construction for the reason that in culturally diverse societies, there is a possibility for individuals to belong “to more than one cultural group” (ibid:32). Instead, Campbell argues for the fluidity of cultural identity, and the necessity to define cultural identity separate from and not in contrast to other identities because “cultural identities are not mutually exclusive” (ibid).

Dayton and Rogoff (2013) explore the process of being indigenous, by attempting to answer what it means to be indigenous. Drawing on a study of indigenous people of the Americas, indigenous identity is rooted in nostalgic reminders of the past and their former ways of life

(20)

12 (ibid:106). Whereas Mesinas and Perez’s (2016:487) study focuses on indigenous identity as being closely associated with “knowledge and use of language”. Their exploratory study on Zapotec Adolescents and Their Parents links the formation of identity to “construction of social roles, cultural afflictions, beliefs, values, and behaviour practices” (ibid:484). Mesinas and Perez’s conclude that youth are more likely to retain their indigenous identity throughout adulthood when connections (in this case the transnational connections to Mexico) to their indigenous roots. Drawing on these studies, this exploratory research identifies the drivers of youth’s perception and conceptualisation of cultural identity – focusing on identifying as indigenous or non-indigenous.

Social Identity

This research identifies cultural identity as a facet of social identity. For this research, social identity is one’s understanding of who they are based on their interactions in groups that they belong to (Tajfel and Turner 1979, Nesdale and Flesser 2001, and Meeus 2017). Social identity is attached to the roles an individual has in life, such as a student or a young person in care and to concepts such as ethnicity and gender. To distinguish how this research understands these concepts, most of the youth’s experience relate to cultural identity. The reason being is that while indigenous identity is an ethnic feature, in the context of Guatemala indigenous is primarily rooted in the sharing of traditions and beliefs with a community.

Personal Identity

Personal identity is intertwined with both cultural and social identity. Personal identity is defined as the distinguishing experiences, background and traits that set people apart. Personal identity focuses on the individual first and how one identifies a sense of self, before broadening the role of the individual to cultural and social identities. In conclusion, this section has provided an overview of the different identities. It is important to understand how these identities are formed because they influence how vulnerable indigenous youth are at risk of experiencing social exclusion. The next sect ion addresses different factors that play a role in constructing one’s identity..

2.2.3 The Formation of Identity

For the specific purpose of this research, this section looks at three factors that influence the formation of identity for vulnerable indigenous youth. These are, social and care institutions, kinship and biological families and notions of home.

(21)

13

Social Institutions and Care Institutions

This research recognises that there are multiple interpretations of social institutions. Most broadly, social institutions refer to groups of people who share a common purpose. This research interprets social institutions as government-run institutions, which for this study includes, but is not limited to, the Attorney General, Child and Adolescent Tribunal and the Human Rights Office.

The reason why social institutions are defined as government-run institutions is to distinguish them from the care institutions. While the government operates public care institutions, this research only focuses on youth from private care institutions4. Therefore, this research defines care institutions as care centres that operate based on simulating family-like care.

Kinship and Biological Families

The understanding of kinship structures differs throughout societies, raising the debate of ‘nature vs law’ (Schneider, 1980). Throughout social sciences, the definition of kinship has evolved into two frameworks: biological and social. Historically, kinship relied on consanguinity and affinal relationships, most notably explored by ethnographers (Levi-Strauss 1969). However, as a result of globalisation, kinship developed beyond this stringent framework to acknowledge the fluid movement of people, most notably through inter- and intra-country adoptions at the cusp of the 21st century. Stemming out of the “growing faith in nurture over nature” (Melosh 2002:17), the original boundaries of kinship have been redrawn to parallel the progression of society.

Extending kinship beyond biological constraints sheds light on the role social experiences have on children from alternative care when understanding kinship, family and biological family. Despite the fact that literature is limited on alternative care as a whole, reviews of kinship care5 and foster care6 are prominently raising after the Guideline for the Alternative Care of Children adopted by the UN in 2010. Contributing to the literature, Winokur et al. (2014) comprehensive experimental study evaluates the outcomes of the wellbeing of children placed in kinship and non-kinship foster care.

4_{The types of care institutions are introduced 4.3 Care Institutions in Guatemala.}

5_{Kinship care (kinship foster care): “family-based care within the child’s extended family or with close friends}

of the family known to the child, whether formal or informal in nature” (SOS 2010:10).

6_{Foster care: situations where children are placed by a competent authority for the purpose of alternative chare}

in a domestic environment of a family other than the children’s own family, that has been selected, qualified, approved and supervised for providing such care” (SOS 2010:10).

(22)

14 This thesis chooses to understand kinship, as social kinship, which can be either biological or non-biological. The concept of kinship or family differs between each youth, and for that reason, this study creates the term ‘biological family’. By distinguishing the term biological family as being rooted in genetics, this research examines how youth construct the notion of family without placing importance on the biological factor.

The Notion of Home

The notion of home –what constitutes a home– is a theoretical concept where academics, in particular, ethnographers, continually challenge the boundaries by reconceptualising ‘home’. John Berger (1984) argues that the notion of home has changed as a result of modernisation by transitioning the ‘home’ away from a physical place and towards a self-constructed concept. Ethnographic works on populations that are connected to movement reference the need and pertinence of Berger’s redefined notion of home. For this reason, the debate of home contributes to this thesis by offering examples of how people in transitional phases (i.e. exiles, labour migrants, asylum seekers) maintain or redefine the importance of home.

Amit-Talai’s (1998) ethnography shares the experiences of labour migrants in the Cayman Islands, who she defines as being in a “sense of limbo” (ibid:47). Having lived away from the places they come from, the labour migrants feel disconnected to physical places as homes and “no longer feel at home in their own country” (ibid:8). This ethnography highlights the difficulty of creating a universal definition of ‘home’. In the case of Amit-Talai’s work, the labour migrants conceptualisation of a home is not a reflection of nationality, but rather a self-created identity of a person who endured a transition. Therefore, it is necessary to conceptualise how indigenous youth from care backgrounds construct their understanding of home and home communities.

Rapport and Dawson (1998) emphasise the relationship between identity and movement, by challenging the need to attach a persons’ identity to an environment. Perceptions of identity are traditionally associated with a place “where one’s self-identity is best grounded” and where a person can return to (ibid:21). To centralise a persons’ identity to a home is problematizing for those who are “rootless, displaced between worlds” (Rapport and Overing 2007:299). Berger suggests a home can be set by “a routine of set practices, in a repetition of habitual social interactions” (ibid:176), which underlines the importance of everyday life.

(23)

15 The relationship between movement and identity is a fundamental basis for the thesis by focusing on the effect of transitional phases experienced by indigenous young people in care. This thesis recognises the ‘notion of home’ as a fluid construct that is largely based on personal identity. Since the concept of home differs between each youth, this distinguishes between home with their care family and home with their biological family, by introducing the term ‘home community’. Home community refers to where the youth’s biological family currently lives, where the young people may or may not have relationships with members of the home community.

2.3 Social In-and Exclusion on Identity

While there are many drivers for social exclusion ranging from structural to sociocultural, this study focuses on the dynamic relationship between social in-and exclusion based on social or cultural identity. The main features of this study are the reciprocal relationship between social in-and exclusion and how identity has been highlighted in literature. Research has connected cultural, social, and personal identity to social in-and exclusion, while the inverse possibility of social exclusion affecting the formation of identity is often overlooked. Therefore to conclude, this thesis turns its focus on the effects social exclusion and identity have on one another. An individual’s social exclusion is often referenced as a response to one’s identity. As noted in the preceding section, exclusion is more prominent among vulnerable populations and in the case of Alston and Kent (2009) identifying as indigenous increases the probability of exclusion of young people in Australia. Therefore social exclusion may lead to the process of adopting or transitioning a new and different identity. Berkman (2007) argues that the social exclusion by state structures often leads victims to seek authority by acquiring and adopting other forms of identity. Most notably in Berkman’s Social Exclusion and Violence in Latin American and the Caribbean, social exclusion contributes to levels of violence and “the need for identity” (ibid:21).

2.4 Conceptual Scheme

This section provides a visualisation of the key concepts addressed by this study through the conceptual scheme. After conducting field research and re-evaluating the conceptual scheme, I decided to visually reconfigure of how all of the major concepts interact with one another.

(24)

16

Figure 1 Conceptual Scheme

As shown in the large triangle, the term vulnerable youth can be broken down into more detailed concepts. This study highlights one facet of vulnerable youth by using indigenous youth populations from care backgrounds as the unit of analysis. This unit of analysis includes young people living in, transitioning out of and living outside of care; which often affects the importance of each variable’s influence on the concept of identity, both social and cultural. The first part of this scheme has been portrayed as an inverted triangle to demonstrate how this research has refined the broad concept of vulnerable youth.

The four small triangles represent the variables: social institutions, care institutions, biological families, and home communities. All of these variables are driving factors towards identity, which in turn shape and influence how youth from care perceive identity themselves. It is necessary to note the variable of social institutions has been purposefully bordered with dotted lines because it is an incidental finding of the results as part of the aim to triangulate responses from a variety of informants.

Lastly, this scheme seeks to reflect the direct relationship of vulnerable youth and social in-and exclusion as the theoretical framework has highlighted. The process of social in-and exclusion

(25)

17 occurs through three of the variables: care institutions, biological families and home communities. Originally in this research’s proposal, the study acknowledged care institutions as the sole driver of social and cultural experiences of identity. Therefore, this section of the conceptual scheme has changed since the proposal by acknowledging and understanding the complex nature of how and when social in-and exclusion occurs. For this reason, this conceptual scheme not only demonstrates how these variables conduct the social in-and exclusion of youth but also how social in-and exclusion shape the construction of the social and cultural identity of vulnerable youth. The outlying feedback loop around the scheme illustrates the symbiotic relationship between vulnerability and in-and exclusion and self-exclusion.

(26)

18

Chapter 3: Research Design

This chapter outlines the methodological frameworks for this research, by introducing the research questions and sub-questions and the epistemological stance this study adapts. Then, this chapter identifies the methodology and methods used to collect and analyse the data. Finally, this section address ethical considerations and limitations this study identified before entering the field.

3.1 Research Questions

3.1.1 Primary Research Question

How does living in or being from care institutions shape the social in-and exclusion of specific vulnerable indigenous youth groups in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, and how does this in turn affect youth’s perceptions and experiences of cultural, social, and personal identity?

3.1.2 Research Sub-Questions

1. How does the perception of vulnerable indigenous youth’s identity vary by different actors?

a. How do social institutions perceive vulnerable indigenous youth? b. How do care institutions perceive vulnerable indigenous youth? c. How do vulnerable indigenous youth perceive themselves?

i. Do they perceive themselves as being indigenous youth and/or youth in care?

d. How does language affect the perception of vulnerable indigenous youth? 2. In what ways do experiences of care affect the cultural, social and personal identities

of vulnerable indigenous youth?

a. What effects do the transitions into and during care have on the identity of vulnerable youth?

b. What effects does the relationship between caregivers and vulnerable youth have on their identity?

3. When and how do indigenous vulnerable youth experience social in-and exclusion? a. In what domains of their daily lives do indigenous vulnerable youth experience

frictions and conducive interactions?

b. How does living with vulnerable youth affect the social in-and exclusion of each other?

c. How does visiting biological families affect the social in-and exclusion of vulnerable youth?

d. How does visiting home communities affect the social in-and exclusion of vulnerable youth?

3.2 Epistemology

The epistemological perspective of this study is a relational approach to exclusion, vulnerability and identity. This research adopts a relational approach because it provides insight into the interactions of these terms in different environments. By taking a relational approach, these concepts are defined in the context of vulnerable youth. By applying this relational

(27)

19 approach to the construction of vulnerable indigenous youth, it is necessary to first focus on what makes youth vulnerable. These young people are identified as vulnerable because of the drivers, such as indigenous identity put them at risk of social exclusion.

3.3 Research Methodology

The research conducted by this study parallels an ongoing larger research project, commissioned by SOS Kinderdorpen Netherlands and carried out by the AISSR (Pouw and Hodgkinson 2016b). Using a relational approach explores how the youth participants interact with the care structures and relationships over time. These structures and relationships include care settings (rules, norms, customs and language practices, their relationship with caregivers, their relationships with social peers in and outside of the care (care siblings and classmates), and their relationship with their home community (biological family and community members). These inductive interactions are best understood through a mixed methodology. This research uses a mixed method approach collecting the primary data from semi-structured in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and life histories. The findings of each method built the foundation for the following. The first set of the in-depth interviews with care stakeholders highlighted themes to introduce throughout the FGDs. The results of the FGDs contributed to the life history outline by building on topics that the participants identified. Each of these methods has been chosen to help understand specific facets of the perception of identity of vulnerable indigenous youth and the in-and exclusion of these youth.

3.4 Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis for this research is the vulnerable indigenous youth in, currently outside, and transitioning out of care institutions – collectively referred to as specific vulnerable indigenous youth groups. Before leaving for the field, this study knew there was indigenous youth living in and transitioning out of care at Aldeas Infantiles SOS, with the Country Director’s approval and support to focus on indigenous youth due to the relevance for Quetzaltenango. For this reason, this unit of analysis is indigenous youth from care backgrounds. This study used purposive sampling by contacting all youth that fit this criterion at three care centres: Aldeas Infantiles SOS, Fundación Futuro de Los Niños and Hogar Abierto. This study chooses homogeneous purposive sampling to give each participant an option to express his or her experience, if willing, with the hope to draw a representative sample.

(28)

20

3.5 Participant Selection

This research conducted purposive sampling when selecting research participants (Bryman 2012:418). Purposive sampling is a non-probability form of sampling, which allows researchers to select all respondents based on characteristics of the unit of analysis. In consideration of using a non-probability sampling method, the data will not be able to be generalised to a larger population. An a priori sampling approach was used for the participant selection for FGDs and life histories. The distinguishing feature of a priori sampling is that “the criteria for selecting participants are established at the outset of the research” (Hood 2007 in Bryman 2012:418). In this regard, the criteria for participants were indigenous youth who are living in, transitioning out of, or living outside of care institutions in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala.

The first group of participants this research engages are indigenous youth living in or have lived in care at one of the three care institutions. I established connections beyond SOS by contacting all relevant care facilities in the Quetzaltenango Department, working with a researcher from the larger study. The directors of each care centre approved this research to work with these participants. I contacted all of the young people who fit the criteria for participation and conducted focus group discussions with available participants. The life history participants were selected from youth who participated in FGDs, except for youth transitioning out of care. The life history participants were selected based on their contributions and responses in the FGDs.

The second group of participants this research engages are stakeholders from care institutions, local government representatives for youth, and a governmental organisation for human rights. The identified stakeholders are care mothers, care aunts, directors of care institutions, psychologists in government offices and an employee from the human rights office.

3.6 Data Collection Methods

The table below provides a general representation of how many of each research method were conducted. The following sections outline the research process and explain the purpose and contribution of each method.

(29)

21

Table 1 Data Gathering and Participant Demographics

3.6.1 Semi-Structured, In-Depth Interviews

The first method I used was semi-structured, in-depth interviews with stakeholders. These interviews were conducted to help answer sub-question 1, and more precisely 1(a) and 1(b). This research formulated interview questions to provide insight into perceptions of the identities of vulnerable indigenous youth from an external perspective (Bryman 2012:212). Furthermore, these interviews helped identify youth participants, created a baseline understanding of perceptions surrounding young people in care, and reinforced data collected through other methods by triangulating knowledge.

From the first set of interviews with care mothers, aunts and directors, I was able to identify themes as points of discussion for the FGDs and better understand challenges the different types of vulnerable youth (indigenous and non-indigenous) face. These insights shaped the construction of the vignettes used in the FGDs.

The second set of interviews with representatives of government offices occurred after the completion of FGDs and most of the life histories. These interviews broaden the scope of the research through external perceptions of indigenous populations and care institutions in Guatemala, specifically in Quetzaltenango. The data collected from these interviews allow this research to triangulate the responses from stakeholders who are direct and indirect actors in vulnerable indigenous youth’s daily lives.

(30)

22 3.6.2 Focus Group Discussion

The second data collection method used was focus group discussions with vulnerable indigenous youth. These FGDs were conducted to provide a foundational background for each of the sub-questions, more specifically the responses contribute to sub-sub-questions 1(c), 1(c(i)), 1(d), 2(b), and 3(a). The objective of FGDs is to create an environment where vulnerable indigenous youth can freely discuss their experiences currently living in care institutions or after leaving care centres. This research used the focus group technique because FGDs create a space where “individuals discuss a certain issue as members of a group, rather than simply as individuals” (Bryman 2012:501). The FGDs provided an atmosphere where I was able to establish rapport with the youth.

Vignettes and the related follow up questions were used during the FGDs to stimulate

participants responses to particular scenarios (ibid:261). Finch (1987 in Bryman 2012:263) proposes using vignettes can be beneficial “when the subject matter is a sensitive area”. By discussing the topics of this research in hypothetical scenarios, the participants created an environment that separated their reality from these issues. Bryman (2012) recognises that due to the hypothetical nature of vignettes, the responses they prompt are not necessarily a realistic representation of the participant's reflection. With this in consideration, this research used vignettes as a departure point for the youth to contribute personal anecdotes and experiences. Furthermore, the discussions surrounding the vignettes have contributed to answering the sub-sub-question 1(c) by understanding how vulnerable youth perceive themselves and how their perceive youth with a similar background to themselves.

Social-relational mapping was an activity used during the FGDs. With guidance, the FGD

participants completed the activity by identifying and drawing the daily relationships in lives. The purpose of this exercise was to highlight the positive and negative interactions of the youth. The results of the social-relational mapping differed between and within each group. All the young people identified the same actors but attributed varying responses to the positive or adverse effects of the relationships. This activity created a visual understanding of how actors are connected and identified frictional and conducive interactions experienced by the youth, which contribute to answering sub-question 3 and it’s sub-question 3(a).

Ranking was the concluding exercise during the FGDs. The purpose of this exercise was to

summarise their shared knowledge of defining characteristics of indigenous populations from their perspective. This ranking contributes to the broader understanding of how there are

(31)

23 different levels and facets to being considered indigenous, which Table 2 and 3 illustrate. The responses from this exercise address sub-sub-question 1(c).

3.6.3 Life Histories

After the FGDs, I conducted life histories with select youth as a continuation of conversations from the discussions. Oral history interviews, such as life histories, provide a space where participants can share, recall and reflect on relevant events from their lives (Bryman 2001:213). A distinguishing feature of life histories is that “there is usually a cluster of fairly specific research concerns to do with a particular epoch or event” (ibid). In this research, the focal points of the life histories were events that shaped their perceptions of identity. The key elements of a vulnerable youth that this study explores are their home ‘indigenous’ background, the care environment and their transition between these two settings. Using the life history methodology allows individuals to be reflexive on “how they interpret, understand, and define the world around them” (Faraday and Plummer 1979:776 in Bryman 2001:488). While there are some critiques about the use of life histories about the possibility of bias and distortions of memories (Grele 1998 in Bryamn 2001:389), this research argues that the use of life histories is valuable when studying social in-and exclusion. The life histories conducted by this research have provided young persons with the ability to express personal experiences through the recollection of specific events. For this research, life histories were necessary to learn how youth from care manoeuvre themselves inside and outside of care. Life histories were conducted to expand on the findings of the FGDs and to provide personal experiences to contribute to sub-sub-questions 1(c), 1(c(i)), 1(d), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d).

3.7 Data Analysis

This study manually analysed field notes, life history transcriptions, and focus group activities. Initially, these documents have been divided thematically by identifying codes and quotes. After the initial round of coding, this study chose to use AtlasTi to analyse the life history transcripts further and to generate a list of relevant quotes for each code. The codes started as broad themes focusing on social in-and exclusion and social, cultural and personal identity, which was then further focused into driving actors of group identity, language, personal identity, social stigma, familial relations and home relations.

3.8 Ethical Considerations and Limitations

This thesis is part of a larger comparative study conducted by Pouw and Hodgkinson, which obtained ethical approval from the AISSR Ethical Committee before this research. This section aims to highlight further ethical considerations for this research and how I, as the researcher,

(32)

24 have addressed them. The primary data collected for this research comes from ‘vulnerable youth’. It is important to note that vulnerable youth as defined in the literature section includes children, persons under the age of 18. As described earlier in 4.5 Participant Selection, all of the youth were selected based on the recommendation and identification at the care directors and care mothers discretion. Each participant’s capacity to make informed decisions was considered, based on their age and level of education (i.e. what grade they are in). I prepared by working with the SOS care mothers on how I should broach the theme of identity with the youth.

I assured all those involved of their confidentially, and I have given anonymity to all of my informants. Before starting the interviews, FGDs and life histories, I introduced the study and the methodology this study adopts before asking for written consent, from the youth and the care mothers and oral consent from the directors and the government officials/psychologists. I also discussed the presence of recording devices to facilitate with transcriptions. Moreover, I recognised that gaining consent was a continuous process and informed the participants their right to withdraw or abstain at any stage of the research.

Another ethical consideration is the understanding of the purpose of participating in the research and the reason for conducting the research. Each care institution will receive a profile of their facilities from my perspective as a researcher and a comparative analysis of the programmes each organisation offers. All participants were aware of the purpose of the research, for my Master’s thesis and the profile reports for the care centres. Furthermore, I highlighted with whom I intended to distribute the work mentioning the University of Amsterdam, SOS Children’s Villages International, Fundacion Futuro de Los Niños and Hogar Abierto.

It is necessary to consider the limitations and ethical considerations from my positionality as a researcher. I recognise the topic of identity for anyone who has lived in care may be difficult to share with a researcher or with peers. I believe my position as a Chinese-American adoptee, which often straddles the line of identifying as Chinese and American allows me to understand difficulties some participants may experience when conceptualising identity. This unique positionality could be detrimental to the research, for the reason that it may cause me to overlook certain aspects of young indigenous people living in care and create a bias towards preconceived notions of identity that I have experienced, with the expectation that they will have similar or parallel opinions.

(33)

25 The last limitation of this research is the extent of my Spanish language skills. In the field, my field supervisor actively supported the research by reviewing all of the research materials (i.e. interview questions, focus group material, life history outline, and vignettes) to facilitate the participant’s comprehension of the themes. While I was confident to conduct all of the research without the help of a translator, the ethical concern to this limitation is a misinterpretation or failure to understand responses while analysing. I prepared for this limitation by using a voice recorder for all of my methodological interactions (i.e. interviews, FGDs and life histories) and have had a Spanish-speaking colleague review all of my transcriptions.

The social in- and exclusion of vulnerable indigenous youth in Guatemala : a study of perceptions and experiences of identity from a background in care