To Live in a Good Place
A Study of Meaningful Inclusion for African Migrant Women in South Africa
Gerylaine Campos Student number: 11222182 MSc International Development Studies University of Amsterdam (UvA) Thesis supervisor: Courtney Vegelin Second reader: Esther Miedema August 2017Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ... 4 Abstract ... 5 1.0 Introduction ... 6 1.1 Research question and Sub-questions: ... 7 2.0 Research Context ... 8 2.1 Research Location ... 8 2.2 Apartheid ... 8 2.3 South Africa’s Rights Framework ... 9 2.4 The Anti-immigrant Uprisings of 2008 and 2015 ... 10 3.0 Theoretical Framework ... 12 3.1 Migration ... 12 3.2 Xenophobia ... 14 3.3 The State and Violence Against Women ... 15 3.4 Social Inclusion and Exclusion ... 17 3.5 Health Inclusion and Exclusion ... 18 3.6 Economic Inclusion and Exclusion ... 21 3.7 Spatial Inclusion and Exclusion ... 22 3.8 Community ... 24 3.9 Belonging ... 25 3.10 Theoretical Conceptual Framework ... 25 3.11 Closing Thoughts ... 26 4.0 Methodology ... 27 4.1 Unit of Analysis ... 27 4.2 Epistemology and Ontology ... 27 4.3 Data Collection Methods ... 28 4.4 Data Analysis ... 31 4.5 Ethical Considerations ... 32 4.6 Methodological Reflection ... 33 4.7 Observed Conceptual Framework ... 36 5.0 Institutional Inclusion and Institutional Barriers ... 39 5.1 Documentation ... 39 5.2 Migration Policy and Procedure ... 41 5.3 Rights ... 43 5.4 Healthcare ... 44 5.5 Affirmative action ... 47 5.6 Closing Thoughts ... 48 6.0 Intermediate Inclusion and Intermediate Barriers ... 49 6.1 Afrophobia ... 49 6.2 Economic Inclusion ... 54 6.3 Spatial Inclusion ... 57 6.4 Closing Thoughts ... 60 7.0 Interpersonal Inclusion and Interpersonal Barriers ... 62 7.1 Language ... 62 7.2 Recognition and belonging ... 64 7.3 Migrant Communities ... 66 7.4 Religious Communities ... 70 7.5 Closing Thoughts ... 718.0 Discussion and conclusion ... 73 8.1 What is the relationship between the levels of meaningful inclusion? ... 73 8. 2 What are the driving forces behind the barriers to meaningful inclusion? ... 74 8.3 When does inclusion become meaningful for migrant women? ... 77 8. 4 What is meaningful inclusion for African migrant women in South Africa, and what are the barriers to achieving it? ... 78 8. 5 Limitations of the Study ... 80 8.6 Additional Suggestions for Further Research ... 82 8.7 Reflections ... 82 Works Cited ... 84 Annexes ... 92 Annex 1: Research Questions for Migrant Women ... 92 Annex 2: Research Questions for Scholars ... 93
Table of Images
Figure 1 ... 11 Figure 2 ... 26 Figure 3 ... 31 Figure 4 ... 37 Figure 5 ... 72Acknowledgements
It is only fitting that I would have so many women to thank in a research inspired by women. First, I would like to thank the research participants for being so generous with their time. The research would not have been possible without the personal stories the research participants shared with me. I would particularly like to thank Lindi, who is the reason I decided to conduct this research. I would also like to thank my research supervisor Courtney Vegelin for her continued patience, enthusiasm, and guidance. I would like to apologise to Esther Miedema who agreed to be the second reader after I marketed my research as ‘the best new thing written in 2017’. Though I suspect I may have oversold my research a bit, I hope it is still interesting to read. I would like to thank my faithful study buddies, and Claire Thomson in particular, who made the long hours in the library and Albert Heijn lunches much better. Neither of my grandmothers were educated past the age of twelve. By submitting this thesis I become the highest educated person in my family. It is an honour I would not have achieved without standing on the shoulders of the strong and loving people who raised me. Mami y Papi, masha danki pa e sosten y amor cu boso semper a dunami.
Abstract
This research discusses the concept of meaningful inclusion for African migrant women in South Africa. Although scholarly literature explores various forms of inclusion in the South African context, it has yet to construct an intersectional and comprehensive conceptualisation of inclusion. The research question therefore is ‘what is meaningful inclusion for African migrant women in South Africa, and what are the barriers to achieving it?’ The primary data consists of in-depth interviews and informal conversations with migrants and scholars. The study finds that meaningful inclusion is dynamic and exists on multiple scales. On the institutional level, meaningful inclusion entails the protection of migrant rights, access to documentation, and access to healthcare. On the intermediate level, meaningful inclusion refers to employment and housing. And on the interpersonal level, meaningful inclusion is the acceptance that migrant women belong where they are, which often requires the migrant women to disappear into South Africa.
1.0 Introduction
This research is an inductive study conducted in Cape Town and Johannesburg to
explore the idea of meaningful inclusion for African migrant women in South Africa. The literature suggests that migrant women in South Africa face a myriad of issues ranging from social exclusion to outright violence (Mafukidze and Mbanda 2008, Slater 2013, Lefko-Everett 2010, Rutherford 2011, Chapter 3.0). Migrant women in South Africa are vulnerable on two fronts, as they face gender-based violence and afrophobic discrimination. Inclusion can empower migrant women by granting them the rights and protections afforded to South Africans legally and culturally. This quote by Kianna, a migrant woman from Cameroon, captures the longing migrant women feel to be included, “I want to live in a good, in a safe place. I can’t work and live in oppression.”1
This longing inspired the research on meaningful inclusion for African migrant women. The research aims to delve deeper into the elements that shape inclusion for migrant women and the barriers they face to achieving it. As the Theoretical Framework maps out, many authors focus on specific elements of inclusion, or broadly discuss inclusion through the sometimes vague concept of social inclusion (Chapter 3.4). The literature lacks an intersectional and focused analysis of inclusion for African migrant women. This thesis attempts to fill this gap by creating an intersectional and multi-scalar concept of inclusion.
When addressing migrant inclusion, it is important to address social cohesion as well, as social cohesion is a marker of an inclusive society. Social cohesion is an important goal in South Africa, and is reflected in the constitutional framework and civil society organisations that work on social cohesion (Chidester, Dexter, and James 2003). Despite this ostensible value for social cohesion, South Africa does not have a socially cohesive society. Two prominent examples that illustrate South Africa’s lack of social cohesion are the anti-immigrant uprisings of 2015 and 2008 in which foreigners throughout South Africa were attacked (Bekker 2015). These uprisings are further discussed in the Research Context chapter and throughout the three empirical analysis chapters (Chapter 2,0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0). Meaningful inclusion for African migrant women is a relevant academic pursuit because of the lack of literature on meaningful inclusion, the afrophobia migrant women 1 Interview 10
endure, and South Africa’s goals for social cohesion. The research question is, ‘what is meaningful inclusion for African migrant women, and what are the barriers to achieving it?” In order to answer the research question the thesis briefly discusses the research context. This is followed by a review of the existing literature on migration and inclusion in the Theoretical Framework. After the Theoretical Framework, the thesis discusses the research methodology. After the methodology, the thesis proposes a conceptualisation of meaningful inclusion based on the empirical data. The thesis continues with the three empirical analysis chapters that discuss the levels and components of meaningful inclusion. Finally, the study concludes with a discussion of the research questions and sub-questions, and some reflections.
1.1 Research question and Sub-questions:
• “What is meaningful inclusion for African migrant women in South Africa, and what are the barriers to achieving it?”
§ What is the relationship between the levels of meaningful inclusion?
§ What are the driving forces behind the barriers to meaningful inclusion?
2.0 Research Context
2.1 Research Location
This section briefly introduces the study’s research location. This research took place at the coastal city of Cape Town, South Africa, and Johannesburg in the Northern Gauteng province. South Africa lies on the Southern tip of the African continent. It has an extensive coastline bordering the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and shares land borders with Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Mozambique, and Lesotho. South Africa’s population is 54 million people, with 80% of the population being black, 8% white, 9% coloured, and 3% Indian/Asian (Central Intelligence Agency). There are 12 official languages, including IsiZulu, IsiXhosa, Afrikaans, English, Sepedi, Setswana, Sesotho, Xitsonga, siSwati, Tshivenda, and isiNdebele (Central Intelligence Agency). The current head of state, Jacob Zuma, has been in power since 2009. He represents the African National Congress, which is the late Nelson Mandela’s political party, and the party that ushered in the end of Apartheid. The country’s capital is divided over three cities, with the administrative capital being in Pretoria, the legislative capital in Cape Town, and the judicial capital in Bloemfontein.
South Africa is a regional leader and participates in a number of regional and continental partnerships, such as the African Union (AU), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (South Africa Year Book 2014, 251). After ending Apartheid in 1994, South Africa joined the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and has been coordinating the Finance, Investment, and Health sectors of SADC ever since (Central Intelligence Agency 2014). Their prominent status on the continent causes South Africa to be an attractive destination for migrants (Crush and Ramachadran 2010). Although the exact number of migrants is unknown due to a large volume of informal migration, migration issues are pervasive in South African society (Crush and Ramachadran 2010). These issues include the anti-immigrant uprisings of 2008 and 2015 and the corresponding efforts by the state to address anti-immigrant tensions in South Africa (Bekker 2015).
2.2 Apartheid
South Africa’s race relations remain tense after decades of institutionalised segregation under Apartheid (Thompson 2000). In 1948 South Africa’s Nationalist Party
rose to power and implemented a national system of Apartheid. Apartheid is Afrikaans for ‘separateness’ and entails an intricate legal system of racial segregation imposed on South Africa by its white leaders. At Apartheid’s core lies four ideas: each South African racial group had its own culture, whites were entitled to absolute control over the state, white interests should prevail over black interests, and whites belonged to a united nation whereas blacks belonged to many nations (Thompson 2000, 190). Racial segregation caused deep, painful rifts in South African society, and citizens rose to protest against the system. Apartheid forced the black South African population to live in institutionalised poverty. It denied them the opportunity to earn proper wages from labour or have any chance of social mobility. Under Apartheid the disparity between the white population and the black population so severely disadvantaged the black population, that more than 16 million people were living beneath minimum-subsistence levels in the 1980s (Byrnes 1997, 186).
The end of Apartheid is marked by South Africa’s first democratic elections. After the first democratic elections in 1994, South Africa’s previously forbidden cities became primary destinations for migrants from other African countries. Over time, the cities became important hubs for African migrants seeking “profit, protection, and the possibility of onward passage,” (Landau and Segatti 2009, 1). Apartheid’s legacy of mistrust and social differentiation, acts as the foundation for anti-immigrant violence in South Africa.
2.3 South Africa’s Rights Framework
South Africa has a universalist rights framework since 1994. “The Constitution is clear that there should be an inclusive and unitary approach to the roll out of government services and benefits. It specifically excludes discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation,” (Parnell 2005, 16). In addition to their universalist constitution, South Africa has passed several laws aimed at protecting women and migrants. For example, Section 9 of the South African constitution guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination. In theory, this protection should extend to migrant women to protect them from discrimination as well. In addition to protections against discrimination, the South African government has progressive laws on violence against women. The first of such acts is the “Domestic Violence Act No 116 of 1998, implemented under the administration of the Department
of Social Development,” (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012, 581). The government passed this act to curb the rampant domestic abuse South African women face. The second is the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses and Related Matters) Act No 32 of 2007, which aims to “handle all legal aspects of or related to sexual offenses and crimes under one statute,” (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012, 582). These two acts are seen as revolutionary moments for the protection of women from violence, because they acknowledge that violence against women counts as a “pervasive form of human rights abuse” that impedes development (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012, 588). The issue of migrant and women’s rights closely relates to meaningful inclusion, as rights are a component of meaningful inclusion, further discussed in the Institutional Inclusion chapter (Chapter 5.0).
2.4 The Anti-immigrant Uprisings of 2008 and 2015
The 2008 and 2015 anti-immigrant uprisings in South Africa were short, violent outbursts in which foreign businesses and immigrants were targeted due to anti-immigrant tension (Bekker 2015). In 2008 the violence escalated to the point of taking the lives of 62 people and displacing an additional 150.000 (Smith 2015, Crush et al. 2008). Merely seven years later anti-immigrant violence broke out again. Two weeks before the 2015 anti-immigrant uprising, the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini demanded the deportation of foreign nationals living in South Africa, because he said locals were competing with foreigners for few economic opportunities (Ndou 2015).2 Immediately following the King’s comments violence broke out leaving six dead, and many migrants displaced (Bekker 2015). 2 King Goodwill Zwelithini is the King of the Zulu nation, and has a largely ceremonial and cultural role.
3.0 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework reviews the broader theories and arguments related to the concepts used in this research. The first section explores migration, xenophobia, and the state’s relationship to violence against women. These sections form the theoretical foundation to understanding the intersectional experience of African migrant women in South Africa. Then, the chapter examines various forms of inclusion. The inclusion sections address social inclusion, health inclusion, spatial inclusion, economic inclusion, and belonging. Finally, the chapter concludes with the conceptual framework to illustrate how factors such as xenophobia and community inhibit or encourage social inclusion, which is an aspect of belonging. There exists a scholarly gap in the literature. Although many authors focus on individual components of inclusion, there lacks a comprehensive and intersectional analysis of the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion for migrant women. In response, this study uses the existing literature to support the conceptualisation of meaningful inclusion (Chapter 5.0-7.0). 3.1 Migration Scholars broadly take two approaches to the concept of migration. Some scholars take a societal approach by studying societal trends and rights (Bloch 2010, Crush and Ramachadran 2010, Bennet et al. 2008, and Landau and Segatti 2009), while others take a personal approach, where they focus on personal motivations and the experiences of migrants (Kihato 2007; and Muanamoha, Maharaj, and Preston-Whyte 2010). Most scholars discussed in this section fall clearly into one of the two categories, yet this study samples from both groups of scholars in order to facilitate its multi-scalar analysis.
A common theme in the literature on trends in migration is the discussion of rights. Despite having universal and human rights, migrants, and especially undocumented migrants, struggle to exercise their rights (Bloch 2010). Policies and public misperceptions fuel xenophobia, which infringes on migrant rights (Crush and Ramachadran 2010; 209, 214). These problems are not exclusive to cross-border migrants as people who migrate within national boundaries also struggle with unclear legislation, accessing public security, and forming their identities (Bennett et al 2008, 21).
Undeterred by this struggle, people continue to migrate because of a number of reasons, including profit-seeking; migration to reach a different final destination; and migration for protection from domestic political persecution, natural disaster, or violence (Landau and Segatti 2009 5). The authors who take the societal approach to migration often focus on these struggles to explore and understand the broader trends that motivate, or are produced by migration.
In contrast to the societal-approach scholars, authors who take the personal approach tend to use more ethnographic methods to illustrate the personal experiences of individual migrants. One area of study in this set of literature is migrant networks. Migrant networks strongly influence migration experiences, as migration creates cross-border social networks that drive migration in the sending community, on borders, and in the destination areas (Muanamoha, Maharaj, and Preston-Whyte 2010, 885). Therefore, studying migrant networks provides useful insight into the experiences of migrants.
In addition to migrant networks, personal approach scholars use a gender lens to study migrant experiences. Kihato (2007) introduces a feminist and woman-centred approach to migration, which she labels the feminisation of migration (91). Kihato (2007) focuses on migrant women’s agency and their roles as active participants in migration. She argues that scholars should move beyond characterising migrant women as victims or victors, and allow for complexity and contradictions in order to gain deeper understanding of migrant women’s narratives (Kihato 2007). The feminisation of migration lends academic support to this thesis, as this research aims to understand the experiences of migrant women in South Africa, with a particular interest in how womanhood influences inclusion and exclusion. Kihato (2007)’s feminisation of migration is present throughout the thesis, and helps differentiate the analysis of the migrant women’s experiences from the generic migrant experience. This perspective adds depth and nuance to the analysis by exploring the contradictory roles certain elements play on the inclusion of migrant women.
The societal and personal approaches can be combined to do a mixed-level study of migration. A mixed-level approach focuses on a small subset of migrants within a larger national and social context (Rutherford 2011, 1305). The multi-scalar analysis necessitates a mixed-level approach, which is reflected in this research’s conceptualisation of meaningful inclusion for migrants (Chapter 4.7). This study relies
heavily on Rutherford (2011)’s mixed-level analysis, because both use similar concepts in the context of migration, including belonging, recognition, and rights (Chapter 7.0, Chapter 5.0).
3.2 Xenophobia
Xenophobia is defined as “hostility directed at those who are deemed to be non-citizens. [It] amounts to a denial of rights and entitlements, expressed through prejudice and stereotypes. It manifests itself through incitement to and actions of obvious exclusion, hostility and violence against people just because of what is deemed to be in the specific context, their ‘foreign status’” (Neocosmos 2006, 1). Xenophobia is closely connected to inclusion, but it has a distinct body of literature on its own. Xenophobia’s two schools of thought focus on the driving forces of xenophobia. Some scholars propound that political discourse provokes xenophobia (Neocosmos 2008, Mosselson 2010, Crush et al. 2008, Everatt 2011, Tagwirei 2006, Bond, Ngwane and Amisi 2009, Sharp 2008, and Nyamnjoh 2006), while other scholars attribute xenophobia to the struggle over scarce resources (Kirshner 2012, Misago, Landau and Monson 2009, Bekker 2015 and Dodson 2010).
3.2.1 Xenophobia and Discourse
The discourse school of thought argues that discourse drives xenophobia through two mediums. The first medium is speech. When government officials use xenophobic language in speech, they empower the rest of society to adopt a similar discourse (Neocosmos 2008, Mosselson 2010, Crush et al 2008, Everatt 2011, Nyamnjoh 2006, Tagwirei 2016). An example of the relationship between xenophobic discourse and violence, is the xenophobic demonstrations that resulted from the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini’s xenophobic comments, mentioned in the Research Context (Bekker 2015, Chapter 2.4).
The second medium is xenophobic discourse in policy. When government officials design policies that use xenophobic language, they instigate xenophobic tension (Bond, Ngwane and Amisi 2009; Sharp 2008). For example, the South African Human Sciences Research Council’ proposed that the South African government do a national audit to eject poor immigrants from subsidised housing for the poor (Sharp 2008).
3.2.2 Xenophobia and Resources
In contrast, the scarcity school of thought attributes xenophobia to scarce economic or material conditions, rather than xenophobic political discourse (Misago, Landau and Monson 2009, Dodson 2010). There are two general interpretations of the scarcity argument (Bekker 2015). The first interpretation is that residents lack access to jobs, housing, and other government services, which causes a relative deprivation that instigates a generalised anger towards migrants, who residents perceive to be their competitors (Bekker 2015, 245-6). The second interpretation is that xenophobic uprisings present the opportunity for local leaders and residents to acquire resources by targeting foreigners’ properties (Bekker 2015, 246). The second interpretation sees xenophobia as a malicious instrument for other purposes, rather than a goal in itself.
Xenophobic discourse and scarce resources are connected. Xenophobic discourse reflects a sense of national exceptionalism and perceived indigeneity. The notion of indigeneity centres on the idea that people who are native to a country are more deserving of employment opportunities and other resources than foreigners (Neocosmos 2008, 591). Xenophobic discourse prohibits migrants from finding employment and integrating themselves in society, because they are considered to be undeserving of resources. As a result, xenophobic ideas shape the ways in which migrants are excluded from resources (Chapter 5.0-7.0).
Some scholars move beyond the discourse and scarcity categorisations to look at how local, social struggles and their intersections with broader political economic dynamics explain the presence of xenophobia in specific places (Kirshner 2012, 1324). Kirshner’s (2012) analysis, however, understates the relevance the impact economic scarcity has on the perceptions of migrants. In contrast, the discourse school of thought assumes that the way the government speaks about poverty perpetuates the idea that migrants take away scarce resources from citizens (Neocosmos 2008, Mosselson 2010).
3.3 The State and Violence Against Women
Governments can use legislation, policy, and the explicit promotion of gender equality to protect women from violence. Many scholars argue, however, that the state fails to use these tools effectively. The theories on the state’s role in protecting women from violence range from the state being a well meaning, but incompetent entity (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012; Seedat et al. 2009), to the state being an active
perpetuator of violence against women (Slater 2013, Lefko-Everett 2010, Rutherford 2011).
The incompetent-state school of thought argues that governments are limited in their ability to protect women from violence through legislation (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012). Women in South Africa suffer from rampant violence despite “the government passing two (considerably progressive) laws, and establishing a Ministry for Women, Children and Persons with Disability,” (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012, 589). Women in South Africa remain vulnerable to a spectrum of abuse and violence, because the government fails to hold its institutions accountable to the implementation of protective laws. This is reflected in the continued failure of human rights–focused legislation to protect women from domestic violence and abuse (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012). Authors in the incompetent-state school of thought argue that governments should favour threats or punishment, rather than human rights-focused laws, because they are more effective in reducing rape and other violent acts against women (Mogale, Burns, and Richter 2012, 581). In order to successfully prevent violence, the government must strategically prioritise anti-violence programmes and policies based on empirical data (Seedat et. al 2009, 1011). Ultimately, this school of thought argues that the government should identify the specific types of violence that occur, and develop programmes and policies to deal with them.
The malevolent-state school of thought goes beyond the incompetent-state’s scepticism of legislation’s effectiveness, and claims that given certain cultural contexts, the government’s outspoken support for gender equality will work to the active detriment of women (Slater 2013). Slater (2013) explains that although the South African government claims to protect women under the guise of gender equality, they secretly engage in violent behaviour towards women by perpetuating gender prejudice, domination, and abuse (3). She uses the example of a woman who was gang raped by South African policemen to illustrate the deep-rooted hypocrisy of state officials who publicly claim to advocate for women, but privately violate them. Other scholars support Slater (2013) in the view that the state is an actively and systematically abusive entity to women (Lefko-Everett 2010, Rutherford 2011, Slater 2013).
In addition to sexual violence, government officials who are emboldened by permissive legislation target migrant women. “Under the 2002 Immigration Act, police or immigration officers may remand people to custody without a warrant if they have
reasonable grounds to believe they are not entitled to be in the Republic of South Africa,” (Landau and Segatti 2009, 10). Police officers regularly use and abuse the Immigration act of 2002 to extort migrant women for bribes in exchange for their freedom (Lefko-Everett 2010).
In this interpretation of the state, the South African government not only permits violent acts against women to occur, but they also function as the primary perpetuator, through sexual assault or by targeting and harassing migrant women. Although this research does not scrutinise on violence against women specifically, violence against African migrant women is a notable issue underlying the need for meaningful inclusion (Chapter 1).
3.4 Social Inclusion and Exclusion
The following sections delve into inclusion and its theories. This research acknowledges that inclusion and exclusion are not exactly the inverse of each other, but will use these concepts as such because the focus of the research lies on migrant women’s experiences with inclusion, rather than the complexities of the relationship between inclusion and exclusion (Chapter 8.0). The literature on social inclusion discusses the circumstances in which marginalised groups are allowed entry into socioeconomic spaces, and their responses to practices they encounter (Mafukidze and Mbanda 2008, 173). Some sources use a broad definition of social inclusion, such as the Commission of the European Communities (1993), which defines social inclusion as “rights in housing, education, health and access to services”. This study highlights the various aspects of social inclusion by analysing the factors proposed by the Commission of the European Communities (1993) as analytical entities in their own right, rather than under the broader term of social inclusion. Additionally, this research focuses approaches to social inclusion that are relevant for migrant women.
One thematic focus in the social inclusion literature that is particularly relevant for this thesis is social inclusion and gender. Following the sentiment of Kihato (2007)’s feminisation of migration, some inclusion scholars use a gender lens to deepen their discussion of social inclusion for migrants. For example, an inclusionary dilemma migrant women encounter is xenophobic, gender-based violence due to a lack of alternative employment opportunities in their home countries (Lefko-Everett 2010).
Social exclusion for migrant women is an intersectional struggle because migrants face both sexism and exclusion from economic and social spheres (Mafukidze and Mbanda 2008, 172). Mafukidze and Mbanda(2008) explain that direct exclusion occurs through labelling, prejudice, and racist administrative decisions; and indirect social exclusion occurs because migrant women lack essential social networks to find jobs (Mafukidze and Mbanda 2008, 180). Social exclusion, in this sense, is the alienation and danger migrant women face when they migrate for better employment opportunities.
3.5 Health Inclusion and Exclusion
The literature on health focuses on health exclusion rather than health inclusion. The three overarching schools of thought in health exclusion concern health xenophobia (Crush and Tawodzera 2014, Hunter-Adams and Rother 2017, Hunter-Adams 2016), health inequality (Sanders and Chopra 2006), and inadequate healthcare (Jewkes, Abrahams, and Mvo 1998; Kruger and Schoombee 2010).
3.5.1 Health Xenophobia
Authors who conceptualise health exclusion as health xenophobia concentrate on how foreigners are prevented from accessing healthcare because of anti-foreigner sentiment. Health xenophobia is defined as “the negative attitudes and practices of health professionals and employees towards migrants and refugees based purely on their identity as non-South African,” (Crush and Tawodzera 2014, 655). Essentially, health xenophobia prohibits migrants from accessing healthcare. Health xenophobia manifests itself in several ways. One common mechanism of health xenophobia is documentation before care, where migrants are refused medical treatment if they cannot prove that they are legally residing in the country (Crush and Tawodzera 2014, 660). Due to documentation before care, “migrants without identity documents tend to regard clinics and hospitals as spaces to fear rather than seek relief,” (Crush and Tawodzera 2014, 661). This means that migrants are excluded from healthcare because seeking out medical help becomes too risky.
Another mechanism of health xenophobia is when migrant patients are prioritised below local patients, so they are treated last, regardless of when they arrive at the healthcare institution (Crush and Tawodzera 2014, 663). This is a symbolic
representation of the migrants’ subordinate position in society. Migrant patients must wait for medical attention to the detriment of their health.
The third mechanism of health xenophobia is deliberate miscommunication when healthcare providers refuse to communicate in a common language (Crush and Tawodzera 2014, 664). Hunter-Adams and Rother (2017) discovered that deliberate miscommunication in healthcare services was a prevalent issue for migrants in South Africa (4). Here they found that nurses and ambulance staff refuse to communicate in English, despite being capable of speaking the language (Hunter-Adams and Rother 2017, 4). Deliberate miscommunication excludes migrants from proper care because they cannot describe their symptoms, and the healthcare providers treat them less effectively. Furthermore, migrant patients who are victims of deliberate miscommunication are unable to give informed consent because they do not understand their diagnoses, nor do they understand their treatment.
In terms of health inclusion, language and communication are important aspects as well (Hunter-Adams and Rother 2017). As the previous paragraph discussed, language barriers prohibit cross-border migrants from accessing adequate healthcare (Hunter-Adams and Rother 2017). Consequently, health institutions require medical translators in order to promote health inclusion. Another important aspect of health inclusion is community integration (Hunter-Adams 2016). Hunter-Adams (2016) argues that communities have a positive effect on health, and a particularly positive effect on the health of female migrants by providing antenatal and postnatal support. These examples of health xenophobia and corresponding health inclusion illustrate how different xenophobic mechanisms exclude migrants from accessing adequate healthcare.
4.5.2 Health Inequality
Some scholars approach health exclusion by discussing health inequalities and their driving factors (Sanders and Chopra 2006). Health inequality is linked to other societal inequalities, such as spatial, racial, employment, and income inequality (Sanders and Chopra 2006, 74). For example, income inequality means wealthier families access better healthcare because they can afford private doctors and regular check ups. This research samples from the theory presented in this school of thought by analysing health inclusion through the lens of other forms of inequalities in order to
explore how these inequalities determine access to healthcare. This argument produces an intersectional discussion of how various forms of inequalities prohibit marginalised communities from accessing healthcare.
4.5.3 Inadequate Healthcare
The third school of thought argues that marginalised communities are excluded by inadequate healthcare. In South Africa, inadequate healthcare for migrants often takes the form of nurses abusing patients. Nurse abuse significantly diminishes the quality of care that migrants receive because migrants experience pain and alienation when they seek out medical help, as opposed to adequate assistance (Jewkes, Abrahams, and Mvo 1998; Kruger and Schoombee). Jewkes, Abrahams, and Mvo (1998) posited that the abuse is primarily motivated by the nurses’ need to establish their professional and class authority. The literature stresses that the issue of nurse abuse is prevalent throughout developing countries and should be addressed as a development issue (Jewkes, Abrahams, and Mvo 1998). This school of thought is related to health xenophobia in it is argues that the nurses often target migrants. Whereas the health xenophobia authors attribute the abuse to anti-immigrant sentiment, however, the inadequate healthcare authors argue that nurse abuse stems primarily from unhappy and overworked nurses.
4.5.4 Health Exclusion in the Context of this Research
This research uses aspects of all three schools of thought. The ways in which xenophobia shapes other aspects of inclusion is an on-going theme throughout the thesis, with a particular interest in how xenophobia determines access to healthcare, and women’s experiences with inadequate healthcare. This research defines access to healthcare as the opportunity and freedom to use health services, with a sufficiently informed individual or household empowered to exercise choice in the healthcare system (Harris et al. 2011). Thus, Crush and Tawodzera (2014) and Harris et al. (2011) provide theoretical support to understanding the research participants’ experience with healthcare in South Africa. Furthermore, this study takes an intersectional approach by considering health exclusion for African migrant women in the context of other forms of inequalities and exclusion.
3.6 Economic Inclusion and Exclusion
The literature on economic inclusion and exclusion can be grouped into three broad theories. The first school of thought argues that economic inclusion is participation in the market (Meagher 2015, Dolan and Rajak 2016). Other authors find this conceptualisation too simplistic, and argue that economic inclusion is a comprehensive social project (Matsiko 2015, Andreasson 2003, Raniga 2017, Meagher, Mann, and Bolt 2016). Conversely, the third school of thought advocates for the simplest definition of economic inclusion, and proposes that economic inclusion is contingent on employment (Heintz 2012, Madanipour 1998, Okonjo-Iweala 2013, Barchiesi 2008). This research aligns most closely with the third school of thought.
The scholars in the market school of thought propose that marginalised communities gain economic inclusion when they meaningfully engage in the market (Meagher 2015, 836; Dolan and Rajak 2016, 515). They stress that economic inclusion entails more than simple growth-redistribution. The poor must have more agency in being consumers, producers, and entrepreneurs (Meagher 2015, 837). One of the ways in which this occurs is the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) approach. This approach aims to draw Africa’s poor into new networks of global capitalism (Dolan and Rajak, 2016, 514). The bottom of the pyramid approach encourages entrepreneurship in Africa by equipping potential entrepreneurs with the practical, psychological, and moral tools they need to engage in the free market (Dolan and Rajak 2016, 514). This school of thought is categorised as a free-market approach because it favours participation in the market over redistributive economic policies.
Contrastingly, scholars who see economic inclusion as a bigger social project argue that social inclusion and economic inclusion are innately connected (Matsiko 2015, 4). People become included when they are empowered through access to education, capital, information, and jobs (Matsiko 2015, 5). This requires an expanded understanding of economic inclusion, The central issue is not just the presence or absence of connections to the global economy, but the economic and power relations embedded in those connections… Economic inclusion is not just inclusion in global economic systems, but also inclusion of the benefits of the global economy (Meagher, Mann, and Bolt 2016, 472).
Simply granting access to the free market is insufficient, and people need social protections in order to be economically included (Matsiko 2015; Meagher, Mann, and Bolt 2016).
At the extreme end, this school of thought rejects neoliberal economic policies all together, and claims that global capitalist dominance aggravates exclusionary tendencies in emerging economies (Andreasson 2003). Neoliberalism and economic inclusion are incompatible according to this line of thinking. This idea is directly opposed to the market approach to economic inclusion (Meagher 2015, Dolan and Rajak 2016). Whereas the social project school of thought posits that the free market is not conducive to promoting inclusion, the market school of thought attempts to work within the framework of the free market to see how bottom of the pyramid initiatives and inclusive markets can include disenfranchised populations.
The third school of thought has the most straightforward conceptualisation of economic inclusion and equates economic inclusion with labour. These authors imagine economic inclusion to be access to resources, and exclusion to be lack of access to employment (Madanipour 1998, 206; Okonjo-Iweala 2013). As a result of this definition, these scholars advocate reducing informal employment for inclusive growth (Heintz 2012, 18). Furthermore, scholars argue that jobs are essential to inclusion, as wage labour acts as an emancipatory force, and forms the basis for social citizenship in a democratic society (Barchiesi 2008, 136). This research’s approach to economic inclusion aligns most closely with the scholars in this school of thought (Chapter 6.0).
3.7 Spatial Inclusion and Exclusion
Similarly to health inclusion, the literature on spatial inclusion often analyses inclusion through the concept of exclusion and the ways to ameliorate it. Spatial inclusion’s three prominent schools of thought are spatial inclusion as protection from homelessness (Wilson 2011, Charlton 2010, Cross et al. 2010, UN Habitat 2003, Patel 2016), spatial exclusion as preventing groups of people from accessing certain areas (Kearns and Paddison 2000, Madanipour 1998) and spatial inclusion as a holistic social project (Bredenoord et al. 2014, Beazley 2002, UN Habitat 2003).
The spatial inclusion and homelessness school of thought sees homelessness as the ultimate form of spatial exclusion (Wilson 2011, UN Habitat 2003, Patel 2016). This
school of thought defines space as the domicile that someone inhabits. Patel (2016) argues that governments should fight homelessness because housing is a right, and it is the government’s duty to uphold this right (Patel 2016, 2738). In this argument, housing is an essential instrument for eradicating spatial exclusion and promoting agency for poorer citizens.
In terms of spatial inclusion, the authors in this school of thought argue that housing facilitates government service delivery and envelopes residents into the nation (Charlton 2010, 2). The state can use housing as a “means of integrating [a] socially, economically and racially diverse and divided residential population,” (Charlton 2010, 5). Formal housing includes people by requiring them to meet the obligations of living in a city or a state, while also giving the government a place to locate and tax them (Charlton 2010, 4). In this sense, formal housing becomes a mechanism to support the mutual relationship between the state and the citizen. These two analyses culminate in the recommendations of UN Habitat (2003) and Wilson (2011), who argue that it is the state’s responsibility to combat homelessness, even if that results in poor-quality, but inexpensive housing. The second school of thought envisions spatial exclusion as the inability to access certain spaces. This interpretation sees spatial exclusion as the physical congregation of excluded people in a specific place (Kearns and Paddison 2000, 846). Whereas some authors imagine space to be a residence (Wilson 2011, Charlton 2010, UN Habitat 2003, Patel 2016, Kearns and Paddison 2000), other authors refer to space as the access to public and private places (Madanipour 1998). In this definition, the barriers to accessing space are the physical organisation of space, mental space, and social control (Madanipour 1998, 209). These three factors prohibiting individuals from accessing public, private, global, and national space through informal codes and signs, and formal rules and regulations (Madanipour 1998, 211). Although this conceptualisation of space is more abstract than the definition of space as a house, this understanding of space is particularly relevant in the South African context where Apartheid segregated public and private spaces by racial categories (Chapter 2.0).
The third school of thought sees spatial inclusion as being part of a bigger social project. In this definition, spatial exclusion is determined by the relationship between a marginalised group and the local authority (Beazley 2002, 475). This characterisation of spatial exclusion goes beyond housing, and refers to the more complex dynamics
between the marginalised group and the authority in a specific location. Consequently, inclusive housing should aim to do more than simply prevent homelessness, and must incorporate sustainable, environmental management and neighbourhood-level economic activities (Bredenoord et al. 2014, 4). UN Habitat (2003) recommends that governments promote spatial inclusion for the poor by improving income rather than fixating on housing. These authors implement a more comprehensive definition of space, because they argue that inclusive housing and spatial inclusion transcend a simple, physical structure.
This study draws heavily on Charlton (2010) in its conceptualisation of spatial inclusion, and emphasises inclusion as the protection from homelessness, rather than access to certain spaces, or spatial inclusion as a holistic social project (Chapter 6.0). The key element for spatially including poorer residents and people who do not intend to settle in South Africa, is finding cheap and convenient shelter (Charlton 2010, 15; UN Habitat 2003). This is the lens through which the analysis of meaningful spatial inclusion for African migrant women is conducted.
3.8 Community
This research bases its conceptualisation of communities on the theories of Madanipour (1998); and Muanamoha, Maharaj, and Preston-Whyte (2010). Communities are people joined through shared sets of symbols and meanings (Madanipour 1998, 207). The two types of communities addressed in study are religious and migrant communities, which are further discussed in the Interpersonal Inclusion chapter (Chapter 7.0). These types align closely with Madanipour (1998)’s three aspects of cultural inclusion, which are language, religion, and nationality (207). Cultural inclusion for Madanipour (1998) revolves around membership in communities that are based on shared sets of symbols, meanings, rituals, and discourses. As such, religious and migrant communities relate to Madanipour (1998)’s conceptualisation of cultural inclusion, because these communities are based on shared rituals, meanings, and symbols. Muanamoha, Maharaj, and Preston-Whyte (2010) explain that communities transcend physical space and centre on the relationships that bond people with a common connection. In this sense, communities such as migrant communities, support migration throughout every stage of the migration process, because the communities are based on a common connection, rather than a physical place.
3.9 Belonging
Global migration produces societal dynamics in which the sense of belonging heavily depends on the circumstances of migrants’ integration (Pineteh 2010, 403). Migrants are put in the challenging position of trying to integrate into an unfamiliar culture, while simultaneously trying to maintain their sense of identities. The simplest definition of belonging is to be accepted (Abott and McConkey 2006, 279). In the more comprehensive definition, belonging is “the routinized discourses, social practices, and institutional arrangements through which people make claims for recognition and rights, the ways through which they become ‘incorporated’ or not within the social fabric of everyday life in particular sites,” (Rutherford 2011, 1306). This research’s conceptualisation aligns with Rutherford (2011)’s comprehensive definition, as it expands on Abbot and McConkey (2006) to include the nuances of belonging. Belonging is an important concept in the research as it is ultimately the interpersonal component of meaningful inclusion.
Many of the concepts mentioned in the previous sections either promote or inhibit belonging. Patel (2016), for example, illustrated the connection between housing and belonging, “the delivery of housing to low income citizens across South Africa reflects the state’s realisation of citizens’ social rights to housing and can help to strengthen a citizen’s sense of belonging,” (2738). This argument is an example of the comprehensive definition of belonging. Patel (2016) suggests that the protection of social rights and access to housing determine citizens’ sense of belonging.
Another concept that is also related to belonging is xenophobia. Xenophobia prevents marginalised groups from belonging, “… xenophobia has an unfavourable impact on social cohesion, contributing to shrinking tolerance and respect for other cultures and fostering the distrust of diversity,” (Crush and Ramachadran 2010, 222). Crush and Ramachadran (2010) demonstrate how xenophobia disrupts social cohesion by impeding migrants’ ability to integrate. These are just two examples of the interconnectedness of belonging with the other concepts discussed in this chapter.
3.10 Theoretical Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework illustrates the relationships between the concepts, as
the literature imagines it. Here, migration is illustrated as a process that moves towards belonging. Social inclusion constitutes a large part of belonging, and consists of other
forms of inclusion, such as health inclusion, economic inclusion, and spatial inclusion. Xenophobia is a barrier to belonging, and inhibits migrants from achieving social inclusion. This is illustrated by the xenophobia-crescent blocking the migration-arrow from reaching the belonging-circle. Communities, on the other hand, facilitate social inclusion, which is illustrated by the community-arrow connecting migration to belonging. Figure 2: Theoretical Conceptual Framework 3.11 Closing Thoughts
Social inclusion is often used as a broad term to describe a myriad of social issues (Commission of the European Communities 1993). In an effort to address a gap in the literature, this research analyses the different aspects of social inclusion, such as health, employment, and housing in the context of meaningful inclusion. In order to strengthen this analysis, the research builds on existing literature and concepts. For example, the research utilises Neocosmos (2008) and Crush and Tawodzera (2014)’s theories on xenophobia to understand the driving forces of anti-immigrant tension in South Africa and its effects on migrant women.
Meaningful inclusion, however, is not based on the conceptual scheme depicted in Figure 2. Figure 2 represents the way the literature imagines the relationships between belonging and other concepts in inclusion, but the theoretical conceptual framework does not represent meaningful inclusion. The concept of meaningful
inclusion is based on observations collected in the field. The resulting analysis, which is discussed throughout the methodology and empirical analysis chapters, proposes a conceptualisation of inclusion that is built on the idea of inclusion being a collection of components (Chapter 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0). The literature discussed in this chapter provides the theoretical support for understanding and defining the components of meaningful inclusion, rather than meaningful inclusion itself. As such, the research proposes an alternative definition of inclusion, which is based on primary data and illustrated in the meaningful inclusion pyramid (Chapter 4.7).
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Unit of Analysis
This research discusses the components that make up meaningful inclusion for African women who migrate to South Africa. The concept is built around the lived experiences and theories surrounding African migrant women. Thus, the unit of analysis is female African migrants in South Africa.
4.2 Epistemology and Ontology
Epistemologically, this research takes an interpretivist approach. The underlying assumption is that the researcher inevitably impacts the social world, and vice versa. Truly objective research does not exist, because the researcher’s perspectives and values influence the findings (Ritchie and Lewis 2003, 17). The research reflects this approach in its use of nuanced research methods, such as ethnographic literature, in-depth interviews, and informal conversations. The underlying assumption, thus, is that there are multiple realities.
Ontologically, this research takes a critical realism approach (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). I assume, first of all, that an external reality exists independent of personal beliefs and understanding (Ritchie and Lewis 2003, 16). In this particular case, the external reality refers to the violence and migration issues migrant women face. Some elements of inclusion, such as documentation, are also part of an external reality that is not based on perception. External reality, however, is only knowable through the human mind and socially constructed meanings (Ritchie and Lewis 2003, 16). In the case of African migrant women, this difference lies in the violence they endure (external
reality), and the perception that the violent actions are motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment (constructed meaning).
4.3 Data Collection Methods
The primary data was collected from 23 in-depth interviews and approximately 60 informal conversations. The research participants are divided in two groups, migrant research participants and scholar research participants. Thirteen of the in-depth interviewees are migrants from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, and Zimbabwe, and ten are scholars. For an extended description of the research participants, see section 4.3.1. The interviews were done in Johannesburg and Cape Town. The majority of the interviews with scholars took place in Johannesburg, while the majority of the interviews with migrants took place in Cape Town because that is where they happened to live.
The aim of the research is to create a new theory on inclusion by using an inductive approach. In order to conduct inductive research, the questions were broad, open-ended, and structured in a way that the research participants could guide the conversation (Annex 1, 2). The interviews with the migrants centred primarily on their understanding of community, the gatekeepers in their community, their thoughts on anti-immigrant discrimination, and their relationship to the South African government. These questions aimed to illuminate the daily experiences of the migrants. The interviews with the scholars had a more theoretical/analytical focus, and we discussed inclusion on a theoretical and institutional level. Many of the scholars were intimately familiar with migration policy, and they discussed in considerable depth the policy implications for inclusion. These interviews shaped the theoretical foundation to understanding the lived experiences of the migrant women.
In order to minimise the inconvenience for the research participants I travelled to a location of their choosing, often meeting up in their offices, homes, or cafés near them. All research participants were asked for their consent to be voice recorded with my cell phone, and 20 of the 23 agreed to being recorded. I took detailed notes for the three participants who did not agree to being recorded. I assured the research participants that their names and personal information would not be stated at any point in the thesis. All the research participants spoke sufficient English that no translators were required. I did, however, employ a research assistant to transcribe 11 of the 23
interviews in order to dedicate more time to the analysis. The other 12 interviews I transcribed myself.
I was introduced to the research participants through snowball sampling. I encountered a lot of difficulty finding research participants because I was not affiliated with any NGOs or South African research institutions. My field supervisor, Henrietta Nyamnjoh introduced me to the majority of the scholar research participants, and some of the migrant research participants. Other participants I met through pure serendipity. One of the research participants whose interviews I call upon heavily in my analysis, I met coincidentally one afternoon at a pub, through a friend of my acquaintance’s friend. Cultivating these relationships took a great deal of time, and I spent about 10 hours per week liaising with various contacts to find these research participants.3 In addition to the 23 in-depth interviews, I had about 60 informal conversations with various African migrants, and South African nationals. The bulk of these conversations were with Uber drivers, the majority of whom were male foreigners working in South Africa. In the short time we had together I usually discussed the job market and their relationship to the South African state. I also discussed their experiences with anti-immigrant discrimination, and the ways in which they experience discrimination in their daily lives. Although some people were hesitant to disclose personal information, the majority of the people I spoke to eagerly discussed their experiences in South Africa, especially as it pertains to employment. The informal conversations helped enrich this research by contextualising the migrant experience in South Africa, and by illustrating the differences between the experiences of migrant men and women. Although this research focuses on African migrant women, specifically, the informal conversations helped elucidate how African migrant men experience anti-immigrant discrimination, and how they understand gender roles. 4.3.1 Research Participants The following two tables give a basic overview of the interviews conducted and the research participants. The interview numbers correspond to the interview numbers referenced in the thesis. 3 Dr. Nyamnjoh secured 25 research participants during her yearlong PhD project in Cape Town, which attests to the difficulty researchers face in finding research participants.
Interviews with migrants:
Interview
# Name Date Description
1 Tanaka 17/02/17 Young, first generation South African. Family is from Zimbabwe
2 Tanaka 05/03/17 Second interview with Tanaka
3 Romy 22/02/17 Young, Zimbabwean migrant woman
4 Ester 22/02/17 Middle-aged, Zimbabwean migrant woman
5 Claire 23/02/17 Middle-aged, Zimbabwean migrant woman
6 Amanda 08/03/17 Young, Zimbabwean migrant woman
7 Michelle 13/03/17 Middle-aged, Zimbabwean migrant woman. Owns stall at
the market.
8 Filomene 13/03/17 Middle-aged, Congolese migrant. Migration activist.
9 Belvie 13/03/17 Middle-aged, Congolese migrant woman. Owns hair salon.
10 Kianna 15/03/17 Middle-aged, Cameroonian migrant woman. Owns hair salon.
11 George 15/03/17 Middle-aged Zimbabwean man. Works in hair salon.
12 Genevieve 15/03/17 Young, Congolese woman. Works in hair salon. Physically attacked during 2015 afrophobic uprising.
13 Nikki 23/03/17 Middle-aged, Zimbabwean migrant woman. Works at the market.
Interviews with scholars:
Interview
# Name Date Description
14 Johanna 17/02/17 European scholar at South African institution.
15 John 20/02/17 Scholar at government-funded think tank that works on social cohesion.
16 Rory 24/02/17 Scholar at migration think tank/ academic institution.
17 Caius 27/02/17 Activist/ scholar at non-profit that lobbies for migrant
rights.
18 Maria Fernanda 02/03/17 Scholar at South African institution. Works on inclusion and women.
19 Nelson 07/03/17 Scholar at migration non-profit.
20 Eddy 14/03/17 Scholar at South African institution.
21 Michael 16/03/17 Scholar at South African institution.
22 Averill 20/03/17 Scholar at South African institution. Works on health inclusion for women. 23 Kourtney 23/03/17 Works at Saartije Baartman Centre, a shelter for women and children.
4.4 Data Analysis
The primary data was coded and analysed using AtlasTi. The 17 codes range from most transferable, which is ‘dimensions of inclusion/exclusion’ to the least transferable aspects of inclusion, such as ‘afrophobia’. The primary data was often double coded so I could cross reference different code combinations for analysis tools like co-occurrence and frequency. Figure 3 shows how the quotes were double coded. For example, a quote coded under ‘community belonging’, was also coded under ‘social cohesion’ and ‘dimensions of inclusion and exclusion’ so that the specific code can be cross-referenced and analysed on varying levels of specificity.
Ultimately I organised 152 quotations across 17 codes. I then sorted and organised the quotations according to themes and arguments. After I sorted the quotations, I mapped out a cohesive line of argument in an extensive outline. This outline structured the contents for the empirical analysis chapters (Chapter 5.0-7.0).
4.5 Ethical Considerations
The primary data collected for this research comes largely from vulnerable people. As such, I took precautions to ensure the interviews posed as little risk and inconvenience to the participants as possible. In order to protect the research participants from backlash for participating in the study, I always conducted my interviews at a place of their choosing, opting for the most private location suggested. I also ensured that all the research participants were afforded confidentiality and anonymity by refraining from revealing their names in my notes and analyses. I stated clearly from the beginning that I could not pay for any of the interviews to prevent misunderstandings.
I asked the research participants for their explicit consent to being recorded, and explained the purpose of my research, their right to confidentiality, and that I will be distributing a summary of the research. My priority was making sure the participants know exactly what I will do with the information I receive from the interviews, and that they understand to whom I will ultimately distribute my thesis. In this way, I ensured that the research participants gave me their informed consent freely and without pressure. After my interviews I asked the research participants for their contact information, which I saved on a secure server, to email them the summary of my thesis results. In trying to bridge the gap between my researcher’s privilege and the research participants, I made sure to offer several opportunities to ask questions about my research, my goals and intention as a researcher, and my background.
During my time in the field I took some steps to ensure my personal safety. I tried to stand out as little as possible. Blending in to South African society, however, took some trials and errors. In my first few weeks I unknowingly wore ostentatious clothing. Although I believed I was dressed modestly, I took for granted how expensive my leather jacket was. The clothing I wore was unremarkable to me because I had owned them for a long time, but to the research participants they represented an unattainable sign of wealth. After two different women casually commented on how they could never afford such an expensive leather jacket, I realised that I needed to be more thoughtful about my choices. My distinguishing class markers affected my findings because I was recreating the exclusionary dynamics of the research participants’ daily lives, and it impeded our trust building. While there were some distinguishing features I
could not control, such as my skin colour, I tried to exercise reflexivity as best as I could in all other aspects.
I also lived in wealthier neighbourhoods where there was generally lower crime. The discrepancy between where I lived and where I conducted research, however, brought up some personal dilemmas. It felt dishonest to work in poorer areas, wearing modest clothing, while I was renting a room in a posh apartment. Often when the research participants asked where I was staying I felt compelled to be vague about the exact location, because I knew those were spaces where migrant women are actively excluded. I questioned frequently whether it was better to downplay my relative wealth to make the research participants feel more comfortable, or if it was better to be honest about my privilege at the risk of alienating the research participants. This dilemma is especially problematic for this research because one of this paper’s topics is spatial exclusion (Chapter 6.0). Ultimately I was not able to find a way of reconciling this disjuncture between the life I lead in Cape Town, and the image I projected to the research participants. I chose to downplay my relative wealth in order to alienate the participants a little as possible, though perhaps in my pursuit of establishing trust with the research participants, I actually engaged in dishonest behaviour. I do not know how I would handle this dilemma in future research endeavours, as I have not been able to rationalise what the most ethical course of action is in such a circumstance. 4.6 Methodological Reflection I use Bryman(2008)’s four criteria for assessing qualitative research to reflect on this research’s quality. 4.6.1 Credibility
In order to triangulate my research I use multiple sources to generate my conclusions. My primary data consists of in-depth interviews and informal conversations. In the Research Context and Theoretical Framework chapters I use scholarly literature to supplement my primary data (Chapter 2.0, 3.0). Additionally, I followed local news outlets during my time in South Africa. I used these sources because they offered vastly different perspectives on the research topic.
The interviews and informal conversations offered me insight about the lived experiences of migrants in South Africa, and it gave me the opportunity to gain deeper understanding about the hurdles migrants face and the ways they overcome them.
When I spoke to the migrant women about their journeys to South Africa I also learned about their thought processes, values, and motivations. These conversations helped me understand my research subjects on a more personal level. This personal understanding was essential in constructing the concept of meaningful inclusion, because the goal of the research is to create a concept that recognises the importance of interpersonal inclusion.
The scholarly literature adds onto the primary data by providing academic and analytical support. The existing literature helps contextualise the lived experiences of migrant women (Chapter 3.0). The research used scholarly literature to understand how other scholars conceptualise inclusion as well as the broader connections between the components of inclusion. The literature also illustrated the gap in knowledge between the ways in which scholars write about inclusion, and what meaningful inclusion looks like in practical terms. In this sense, the scholarly literature triangulates this research’s conclusions by checking if the arguments made have a theoretical foundation to support it.
Whereas the scholarly literature illustrated the theoretical linkages between the components of inclusion, and the primary data humanised the research, the news reports contextualised the research within the national debate. These three elements bolstered the multi-scalar analysis because the sources shaped and illustrated the relationships between the levels of meaningful inclusion.
4.6.2 Dependability
My research touched on sensitive issues for the women I interviewed. In recognising how difficult it is to discuss these issues with a stranger, I made considerable efforts to gain the research participants’ trust. For example, I chose the research participants through snowball sampling, so I was introduced to them via someone they already knew and trusted. It would have been impossible for me to collect data without snowball sampling, given the short time I spent in South Africa and the fact that I was not associated with a particular NGO or organisation. I reached the majority of the research participants through several intermediaries, however, so none of the research participants know each other, and in general they all come from different communities and social circles.
