Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
This chapter reviews literature related to the study. The goal of the study was to explore and describe the resilience processes employed by adolescent secondary school learners living in CHHs. This study intends to illuminate those processes that enhance resilience in CHHs and thus help to sustain their households, allowing them to forge ahead in life. Since this study aims to explore resilience processes with particular reference to adolescent secondary school learners living in CHHs, a common understanding of the meaning of the construct, „resilience‟, is critical. To this purpose, it is also necessary to take cognisance of the origin, development and findings of resilience research in general
The development of resilience research occurred in four „waves‟ each feeding into the other, with the findings of pioneering researchers associated with the first three waves‟ forming the basis for changes to and extensions of the definition of resilience in the fourth wave (O‟Doughtery-Wright, Masten & Narayan, 2013; Masten, 2007; Masten & Obradovic, 2006). The family resilience framework (Walsh, 2016, 2012) – an outcome of the „fourth wave‟ of resilience research – hinging on strength-based rather than deficit-based notions of resilience, illustrates the ways in which adolescents living in CHHs organise themselves and forge ahead in life without adult supervision.
The framework has three key elements, namely, family belief systems, family organisational patterns, and communication and problem-solving processes. These key processes are critical to an understanding of the ways in which adolescents living in CHHs navigate social and contested terrains. The inclusion of an analysis of these three elements as a means of understanding how the adolescents concerned deal with their situation is very critical. In addition to this, international as well as Zimbabwean perspectives on CHHs are reviewed to help explain the prevalence of the CHH phenomenon. The relationship between risk factors (harmful life circumstances that impinge on individuals‟ developmental paths) and protective factors (resilience-enhancing resources) in the resilience matrix on adolescents living in CHHs is also reviewed. This is done in order to suggest ways of building and nurturing resilience in at-risk adolescents. To this purpose, my main task as researcher in this chapter of my research report is to describe and explore resilience processes employed by CHHs as encapsulated in existing literature on the topic in order to arrive at a clear conceptualisation of resilience as a construct.
CONCEPTUALISING RESILIENCE
There are as many definitions of resilience as there are authors. The term, „resilience‟, refers to a dynamic process enabling individuals or groups to overcome the negative effects of risk exposure, successfully cope with traumatic experiences, and avoid negative trajectories associated with risks (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Embedded within the construct of resilience are two conditions: (a) being exposed to a significant threat or adversity, and (b) being able to forge ahead despite experiencing challenges that disturb the affected party‟s health or development (Mmari et al., 2009). Informed by the definition of resilience as a dynamic process, I argue that both protective and risk factors are dynamic, change in response to contextual demands resulting in different outcomes for different individuals (Mampane, 2014; Walsh, 2003).
Defining resilience as the ability to handle stress, to regain strength and lead a normal life after traumas or crisis, Gunnestad and Thwala (2011) developed a model of protective factors which could, according to them, help to reduce the effect of risk factors. The three main groups of protective factors are: (a) network factors, which include social support, abilities and skills; (b) children‟s inborn or acquired resources, and (c) meaning, values and faith related to existential and spiritual support.
Multiple meanings attached to the term, „resilience‟, are reflected in the way it is used (Ungar, 2008). However, regardless of whether it is used to describe developmental outcomes, a set of competencies or coping strategies, there is common agreement amongst users of the concept that it always emerges in the presence of adversity. Based on this conceptualisation, Ungar (2008) contends that resilience research involving children, youth and families should explore the health-enhancing capacities, individual, family and community resources and developmental pathways of vulnerable children and youth. In concurrence, it is argued that the presence of protective and risk factors alike are necessary to the achievement of positive outcomes and the reduction of negative outcomes (Ungar, 2008; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).
Implied in all the conceptualisations of resilience is the notion that it is influenced by the child‟s environment (Ungar, 2008). The extent to which outcomes could be regarded as positive depends on the interaction between individuals and their social ecologies, with cultural variations being an important determinant of children‟s resilience (Ungar, 2008). In this regard, Gilligan (1999), cited in Ungar (2008, p. 221) writes:
While resilience may previously have been seen as residing in the person as a fixed trait, it is now more usefully considered as a variable quality that derives from a process of repeated interactions between a person and favourable features of the surrounding context in a person‟s life. The degree of resilience displayed by a person in a certain context may be said to be related to the extent to which that context has elements that nurture this resilience.
Implied in the preceding citation is the notion that resilience is context-dependent. This means that children need resilient families and other social support systems in the communities to be able to forge ahead with life (Ungar, 2008). In support, Mampane and Bouwer (2011) add that indications from resilience literature are that resilience is systemically embedded. In this regard, adolescents living in adverse developmental contexts, like those living in CHHs could benefit from protection or social support in their efforts to overcome obstacles and adversities (Mampane, 2014). Such support goes a long way towards enhancing adolescents‟ capacity for resilience within their particular environment. In other words, although resilience is intangible, it can be inferred from the behaviour of the individual relative to the environmental circumstances in which he or she is part (Masten, 2007).
Allied to these views on resilience are transactional-ecological conceptualisations, in terms of which resilience is defined as a reciprocal process, embedded in a given social ecology which relies on culturally appropriate interaction between youths and their particular social ecologies (Ungar, 2011). Transactions that are reportedly integral to such bi-directional understandings of resilience include constructive attachments as well as self-regulation to fit the demands of a given ecology, to make meaningful sense of challenges, to be able to find solutions to threatening events and to be goal-oriented (Masten & Wright, 2010).
Implied in these conceptualisations is the suggestion that a sound understanding of resilience is culturally and contextually embedded. On this perspective, Theron, Theron and Malindi (2013) argue against generic conceptualisations of resilience across contexts and cultures, postulating that resilience are a dynamic construct, informed by context, and enmeshed in culture. This is reflected in Ungar‟s (2008, p. culturally and contextually sensitive definition of resilience which is given as follows:
…resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to health sustaining resources, including opportunities to experience feelings of well-being, and a condition of the individual‟s family, community and culture to provide these health resources and experiences in culturally meaningful ways.
As indicated in the definition above, resilience is both a process of the child‟s navigation towards, and his or her capacity to negotiate health resources on their own terms (Ungar, 2008). The emphasis is on the processes by means of which individuals and groups secure for themselves the psychological, social and physical resources that make human development more likely to succeed in contexts of adversity (Ungar, Ghazinour & Richter, 2013). I find this definition particularly appropriate to my study because it enunciates and articulates several attributes that reflect the resilience of adolescents living in CHHs. Moreover, it emphasises the role that the personal attributes of individuals facing hardship and the social support systems in individual adolescents‟ environments (contexts) play in enhancing resilience. It is this definition which becomes the working definition in my study. Having explored the definition of resilience, it is also, as indicated earlier, of significance to trace the development of resilience research, to which I now turn.
ORIGINS OF RESILIENCE RESEARCH
Indications are that the origins of resilience research lie in the medical field and that resilience research in the behavioural sciences only recently came into being (Masten, 2011, 2007; Cicchetti, 2006; Masten & Obradovic, 2006). In this regard, the efforts of pioneering scientists studying resilience in relation to issues concerning the welfare of children was a direct response to the neglect suffered by children and was aimed at understanding, preventing, and enabling recovery from negative mental health as a result of such neglect (Masten, 2011). Thus,“…resilience research emerged from the studies of children at risk for psychopathology as investigators recognised the wide-ranging outcomes of individuals” (Sapienza & Masten, 2011, p. 267). On the other hand, it was the lack of research that catapulted pioneering researchers to engage in resilience research from the 1970s in order to fill the gap on this phenomenon in literature (Masten, 2007).
Since the 1970s, scientists have taken up the challenge of resilience research, aiming to determine what exactly resilience actually entails. The atrocities that befell children during World War 2, with many of them dying in horrific conditions or being orphaned, injured and/or starved focused global attention on the plight of children. Referring to these atrocities, mention is made of Norman Garmezy, a soldier who witnessed the devastating effects of war, Ermy Werner, who survived the devastation of Europe as a young girl, and Michael Rutter, who not only survived the devastation of Europe but also personally experienced the support derived from internal relief efforts (Masten, 2014). These three, having been personally exposed to these occurrences, later played leading roles in resilience science (Masten, 2014).
WAVES OF RESILIENCE RESEARCH
As indicated earlier, resilience development research resembled the occurrence of three „waves‟, each building on the preceding one (Masten, 2014; Lee, Cheung & Kwong, 2012; Zolkoski & Bullock 2012; Masten & Obradovic, 2006). Each of the three waves was informed by a different resilience research need. Pioneering scientists in Psychiatry and Psychology, realising the importance of understanding resilience for practice and policy, initiated the fourth wave of resilience research (Masten, 2007). Characterising this research „wave‟ was a shift in thinking towards a strengths-based model which acknowledged the capacity of at-risk children to do well in life despite their having encountered serious survival challenges. This shift, articulated in Werner and Smith‟s (1992), a 30-year longitudinal study, shows that about 70% of adolescents earlier identified as at-risk demonstrated resilience despite adversity. Supporting this finding was evidence that even though adolescents living in CHHs face a multiplicity of challenges, they have great potential to overcome such adversities and emerge stronger than before.
Acknowledgements
Declaration
Ethics Clearance Certificate
Ethics Statement
Abstract
List of Tables
List of Figures
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW AND RATIONALE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.
1.3 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
1.4 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
1.5 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.7 EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGM
1.8 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.9 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.10 PERCEIVED THREATS TO THE STUDY
1.11 POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY
1.12 CONCLUSION
1.13 OUTLINE OF THESIS CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 CONCEPTUALISING RESILIENCE
2.3 ORIGINS OF RESILIENCE RESEARCH
2.4 WAVES OF RESILIENCE RESEARCH
2.5 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON CHILD-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS.
2.6 CHILD-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN ZIMBABWE
2.7 THE CHILD-HEADED HOUSEHOLD PHENOMENON
2.8 THE CHALLENGE OF DEFINING CHH
2.9 CHALLENGES FACING CHILDREN IN CHHS
2.10 MIGRATIONS AS A PRECURSOR TO CHHs
2.11 MIGRATION IN ZIMBABWE
2.13 ADVERSE EXPERIENCES FACING ADOLESCENTS LIVING IN CHHs
2.14 WHAT ARE RISK FACTORS?
2.15 CONCEPTUALISING PROTECTIVE FACTORS
2.16 RELIGION/SPIRITUALITY AND RESILIENCE
2.17 CULTURE AND RESILIENCE IN ADOLESCENTS
2.18 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1. INTRODUCTION
3.2. RATIONALE FOR USING FRF
3.3 COMPONENTS OF THE FAMILY RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
3.4 REVIEW OF KEY PROCESSES IN FAMILY RESILIENCE
3.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1. INTRODUCTION
4.2. ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER
4.3 EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGM-INTERPRETIVISM
4.4 Methodological Paradigm- Qualitative Approach
4.5 DEFINING RESEARCH DESIGN
4.7 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
4.8 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
4.9 INTERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS (IPA)
4.10 DATA ANALYSIS
4.11 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.12 RIGOUR OF RESEARCH
4.13 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
5.3 THEME 2: RESILIENCE-ENHANCING RESOURCES AND ADOLESCENTS’ AGENCY
5.4 Theme 3: CHHs as reservoirs of knowledge
5.5 WHAT ADOLESCENTS REQUIRE TO RUN THEIR HOUSEHOLDS
5.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
6.3 NEW INSIGHTS
6.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.6 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
