Applying the frameworks in this study

While complexity theory and its application are constantly refined, it risks not actually being useful in practice. This is partly due to overcomplicating a system or overwhelming understandings of it with entities that are not equally relevant, or, almost paradoxically, over-simplifying the system in an attempt to understand it (Holling, 2001). While broader processes and structures may facilitate or constrain household asset use and livelihoods (see 3.4.5), it is not feasible to adequately explore their impact on households due to time and financial constraints. Effort is, however, still taken to explore historical factors driving the present-day local vulnerability context as well as interactions between key stressors in the two study sites in order to understand how these affect household assets.

31 Vulnerability is understood as arising from interactions between and the effects of multiple stressors (see 1.1.1 and 3.2.1), although emphasis is placed on HIV/Aids (see 3.2.3) and climate change (see 3.2.2).

This contextual back-drop helps to explain the study’s primarily focus: the household capital stocks and livelihood activities that are employed within this context (see 3.2.4 and 3.4.3). Keeping the broader context in mind helps to add explanation as to why certain assets or livelihoods are more vulnerable to multiple stressors, what motivates choice in decisions around livelihoods, and the extent to which households are able to respond positively to multiple stressors. Thus, the ‘internal’ and

‘external’ dimensions of vulnerability are considered simultaneously in this study, as these are integrally linked (see 3.2.2 and 3.4.2).

While assets are a main focal point in this study, it is recognised that asset use is also constrained by differential rights of access. Access is considered in this study peripherally through comparisons between sites and between gender headship types and income quartiles. Site comparisons relate to differential ‘locational’ rights of access to markets, urban centres, services, natural resources and other context-specific facets influencing access (Siegel, 2005). Gender headship and income level comparisons consider socio-political or socio-economic rights of access, as the lack of political power and subsequent marginalisation of certain groups, particularly women and low-income households, is a contributing factor to their vulnerability (see 3.2; Scoones, 2009).

The multitude of factors interacting across complex socio-ecological systems, as well as the limits of complexity thinking, necessitate a transdisciplinary approach which combines qualitative and quantitative methods, and which is pragmatic and transformative. A more detailed analysis of how methods are used to understand assets and livelihoods in the context of multiple-stressor vulnerability, together with the limitations of these methods, is presented in the following chapter of this Part (Chapter 4).

32 CHAPTER 4: METHODS

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1. Mixed methods approach

As the conceptual frameworks adopted by this research incorporate a multitude of factors interacting across complex socio-economic systems, a combination of methods and approaches are required to gain a better understanding of differential vulnerability (see Chapter 3; O’Brien et al., 2009; Pohl, 2010; Belsky, 2002).

The value of multiple methods and a transdisciplinary approach is increasingly recognised in sustainability research, given the complexity of the systems involved and the limits of knowledge giving rise to uncertainty (Hirsh Hadorn et al., 2006). The necessity of incorporating results derived from a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is increasingly being applied, particularly in research around poverty and poverty reduction (Shaffer, 2007; Howe & McKay, 2007; Sharp, 2007). Sharp (2007:277) argues that incorporating qualitative contextual information derived from participatory methods is “indispensible”, as this highlights areas that could need further analytical focus and helps discern findings that are important to the context of the research. Understanding the context of research is similarly also important when considering vulnerability (O’Brien et al., 2009).

While it is unfeasible for a single research project to be entirely transdisciplinary, incorporating key transdisciplinary concepts are possible. These include using participatory research as well as attempting to transcend disciplinary boundaries in order to take diverse perspectives of complex socially relevant issues into account, and to link abstract and case-specific knowledge (Pohl, 2010).

Quantitative data collection is useful for measuring and examining household capital stocks, but is limited in this research in explaining the flows of household resources, given the short time-frame of the study. Qualitative participatory methods are thus used to add a temporal dimension, and to understand motivations for choice, perceptions and personal values. Literary desktop research of secondary sources is useful for developing the temporal dimension, and for analysing the complexity inherent in competing disciplinary and policy-oriented interpretations of a context. More than one method was incorporated into each chapter of this thesis for a fuller understanding of these complexities.

4.1.2 Household survey

Quantitative data was derived from household baseline and quarterly surveys (see Appendix 1 for the baseline survey and Appendix 2 for the quarterly survey). The surveys were compiled through several iterations with researchers associated with the project from Rhodes University and the University of

33 Alberta (see 1.3). Many of the questions in the survey, particularly in the quarterly survey, were based on questions drawn from the PEN prototype questionnaire (CIFOR, 2008).

Questions relating to human, physical, natural, financial, and social capital were integrated into the baseline survey, together with questions around recent shocks and responses, and food security, climate change and HIV/Aids perceptions. The quarterly survey primarily measured seasonal variations in income, use of natural resources, agricultural production and expenditure. These data were disaggregated by site, by income quartiles and by the gender of the household head as these divisions were considered important in studying vulnerability to multiple stressors such as HIV/Aids and climate change (see Chapter 1 and 3).

Microsoft Excel (2007), SPSS (16.0) and R (2.13.0) were used to manage and analyse data derived from the survey.

4.1.3 Participatory Methods

Various terms to describe participatory research have emerged over the past few decades, along with subtle differences in approach or method: from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) in the mid 1970s, to Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in the early 1990s, and more recently, Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), with a variety of additional nuanced approaches across this development. Broadly, this cluster is characterised by the use of methods that are highly qualitative, visual and tangible, usually performed with a small group of people. These approaches change the role of the researcher to that of facilitator, and recognise and emphasise local knowledge and capacity (Chambers, 2007). While PLA methodologies are increasingly used and esteemed (Chambers, 2007), they have also elicited much criticism (e.g. Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Often, they are seen as a means to validate or triangulate quantitative data, although this view perhaps neglects the theoretical ideologies which posit PLA not only as a tool set for the researcher to learn, but as an empowering process for those whose knowledge is being used (Leal, 2010).

Participatory methods were used in this study to elicit a more qualitative understanding of drivers of vulnerability and processes of asset use. A number of PLA techniques were used to add contextual information that the data obtained through the survey could not readily reveal, particularly around processes of change, attitudes and behaviour. Timelines, mental maps and asset ranking were used in this study to augment quantitative data, not merely to validate it. When pertinent, groups met

separately along generational and gendered lines to better understand any differences in experiences, perceptions and values.

34 These workshops were entirely voluntary; participants were not remunerated but were provided with refreshments and meals. These exercises were undertaken with a fully bilingual (isiXhosa and English) facilitator, and were recorded.

4.1.4 Literary desktop research of secondary sources

Literary desktop research was used to add an historical perspective to the vulnerability context in South Africa. This historical perspective is important to understand the temporal scale of vulnerability (see 3.4 and 3.4.5). This history also elicits different perspectives across multiple disciplines in the humanities and social sciences: from anthropology, geography, history, politics and sociology. As concepts and perspectives of vulnerability predominate from the ecological or natural sciences (Fussel, 2007; Schoon, 2005), these multiple perspectives contribute to understanding the complexity of vulnerability within social systems to broaden the socio-ecological vulnerability perspective.

Incorporating competing perspectives across disciplinary and policy-oriented lines also contributes to understanding the shift away from positivist scientific research approaches towards an appreciation of the researcher’s role and influence in transdisciplinary research (Belsky, 2002; Maasen & Lieven, 2006).