Methodological Framework

It was important to base the data collection on successful, internationally known, and authenticated survey models due to the complexity of assessing social capital resources held within communities. Five assessment application frameworks for measuring community capacity were researched and assessed for suitability for this study of urban settlements. The first assessment framework was a quantitative approach developed by the World Bank to measure social capital (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2001, p. 21). Grootaert and a group of other specialists went on to

design the Social Capital – Integrated Questionnaire (or SC-IQ), a tool used to

measure the broad scope of social connectivity in poor communities involved in various development projects in Africa during the period 2002-2004 (Grootaert, Narayan, Jones & Woolcock, 2004, p. 25). Most commonly used in combination with a living standards assessment tool the SC-IQ survey provided a systematic way of measuring the different ‘dimensions’ of social capital identified as important in providing the full ‘baseline of socio-economic information’ about a subject

community (p.2). A core set of questions were provided for practitioners and researchers to draw on to explore six key ‘dimensions’ of social capital the group regarded as important for the linking of community members structural organisation to their cognitive perceptions about working together, and the outcomes being achieved by these inter-relationships (p.4). The dimensions included: (i) groups and networks; (ii) trust and solidarity; collective action and cooperation; (iii)

45

- 97 -

information and communication; (iv) social cohesion and inclusion and (v) empowerment and political action (p. 5).

The second assessment approach was another quantitative methodology

developed by a global non-government organisation based in South Africa called

Civicus– the Civil Society Index, (or CSI). It has been successfully applied in a global benchmarking exercise to assess the vibrancy and effectiveness of civil society at the national level (Heinrich, 2004, p. 1). It also measured ‘dimensions’ of social capital but rather those held within civil society organisations and is now used to ‘assess the state of civil society in countries around the world’ (p.1). A comprehensive manual about how to apply the methodology contains a core set of

questions for researchers to draw on that explore the four basic ‘dimensions of

social capital’ regarded as important for ‘creating a knowledge base and impetus for civil society strengthening initiatives’ (p.7). These dimensions included: (i) the structure of civil society; (ii) the external operating environment; (iii) the values practiced and promoted by them; and (iv) the impact of activities pursued by civil society actors (p. 7).

Common ‘dimensions’ utilised between both were: (a) community organisational structure (in terms of community structures, membership and participation); (b) socio-cultural environment (in terms of shared values, trust and honesty, and collective action and public spiritedness); (c) community values (in terms of social cohesion, tolerances and inclusivity); and (d) community impact, (in terms of empowerment and/or social change aspects by way of resource mobilisation for example).

The third and fourth capacity assessment tools were from the work of Chan et. al.,

(2006) and MacLellan-Wright (2003), both for measuring social cohesion – as

summarised in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.4, Chan’s et. al., (2006) ‘two-way framework’

included questions to determine both the horizontal (within) and vertical (external)

- 98 -

mind) and ‘objective’ (behavioural manifestations)’ as indicators for these two dimensions of community capacity. These were helpful to develop questions to distinguish between the structural (types of networks and extent of peoples contributions) and cognitive (peoples perceptions) elements of social capital.

The fifth tool was applied by Glen Laverack (2007) who through the late 1990’s had developed an instrument for measuring community capacity across nine

‘operational domains’ that assisted in health issue promotion46 - coincidently also in Fiji (p. 60-62). The Laverack approach looked more closely at the empowerment ‘domains’ of community capacity and provided potential for constructively

evaluating the researchers data including a means to visually represent the results

in a meaningful way (p. 93). Two aspects distinguish the usefulness of Laveracks’

approach for this research. Firstly, the specific ‘domains’ of interest fall within the broader ‘dimensions’ of social capital that the World Bank and Civicus tools are assessing and secondly its suitability for micro level (village/settlement)

assessment as compared to the former which are aimed at the macro level

(broader community or countrywide). Laveracks work has since been supported by others, notably Lev-Wiesel (2003) and MacLellan-Wright, et. al., (2007), who

included domains associated with measuring social cohesion and Anderson, MacLellan-Wright & Barber, (2007) who have developed a manual for planning public health outreach programmes for communities in Canada.

A review of these three assessment methods determined that these were

applicable for this study on Fijian squatter settlements, and that nine ‘domains’ best represented the requirements for assessing and comparing capacity levels

between squatter settlements in this study. These also aligned well to the common set of social capital ‘dimensions’ that the other macro level assessments followed.

46

Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.5. Lavarack’s methodology had drawn on a wider body of work

about community capacity and empowerment, differentiated by a focus on achieving that outcome through a strategic planning approach. For a more detailed summary refer to: Labonte, R., & Laverack, G., (2001 a & b) and Gibbon, M., Labonte, R., & Laverack, G., (2002).

- 99 -

The nine domains are summarised below with each paired with the demonstrated outcome:

(i) Organisational Structures: broad and empowered

(ii) Participation: improves

(iii) Leadership: developed locally

(iv) Sense of Community: well developed sense of trust and belonging including

increased local controls

(v) Problem assessment: capacity increases

(vi) Critical Assessment: enhanced awareness

(vii) External Linkages: strengthened, including with public institutions and other

organisations

(viii) Resource Mobilisation: improved

(ix) External Agent Supports: equitable relationships created

In summary, the IQ-SC survey and Laverack’s approach were considered the most

suitable to determine this research questionnaire and method of analysing data. Further detail on the actual structure of the questionnaire is provided in the next section.

There was a general lack of direction from this literature on how to analyse, interpret and report the findings of data collected from such surveys. Grootaert et.

al. (2004) outlined a process that was considered too sophisticated and the Civicus

CSI method only provided a guide as to how key trends and differences could be highlighted. Therefore the researcher developing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to process and analyse the data trends across each settlement for each question, dimension and domain. Trends were highlighted in percentage terms then graphed or tabulated for result presentation (Chapters 6 and 7). A full summary of the survey records for the three settlement case studies are presented in Appendix 2.

For diagnosing the results of the community empowerment domains, the researcher was guided by the Laverack (2007, p. 73-76) approach, modifying

- 100 -

some of the indicators in order to take an objective view of the ‘state of affairs’ of each community. The consolidated results from the spreadsheet analysis for the nine domains were diagnosed utilising the indicators measured under each domain obtained from the questionnaire (see methodology Section 5.3.2.3). The results for

each settlement could then be presented in diagrammatic from so that a ‘snapshot

in time’ of the ‘state of community affairs’ was illustrated in the ‘spider web’ graphic

configuration based Laverack’s (2007) community empowerment work. The

graphic presentation will provide a baseline mapping of each community’s social

capital capacity development, against which further future assessments can be made, that would in turn provide some measure of progress of functionality and cohesion (Laverack, 2007, p. 94).These results are presented in Chapter 7 and a full summary of the steps and indicators is presented in Appendix 2.