nutritional-intervention-in-rural-communities-in-south-africa

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 2: Philosophical and theoretical driving force of the study

INTRODUCTION

The philosophical point of departure for this research study originates in the ideology of community development. The concept ‘ideology’ is used to refer to certain beliefs and doctrines reflecting the views of experts in the field. Community development in a broad sense connotes a process of social learning through people’s participation in promoting self-reliance (Burkey, 2000:60). Within the context of this study, it refers to the process of assisting needy people within a specific geographical area (the community), to address felt needs and improve their lives for the better.
PAR is evident as paradigm. The term ‘paradigm’, as used here, means a pattern of ideas, values, methods and behaviour, which fit together and are mutually reinforcing. PAR is considered a research methodology as well as a development strategy. Although the dimensions of PAR denote participation, action and research, it is specifically rooted in the notion of ‘participation’, which is the very means to, and end of, human development (Fals-Borda, 2000: 30; Fals-Borda, 1991a:5; Greenwood & Levin, 1998:7).
The PAR paradigm, as applied in this research study, is underpinned by a combination of various research theories and approaches such as CBPR and critical social theory with aspects of adult education theory and evaluative research intertwined. CBPR is seen as PAR applied within the context of communities. The relevance therefore is noticeable. Critical social theory is seen as the mould into which PAR is set and needs to be discussed first. Principles of adult education theory and evaluative research are applied during the designing and implementation phases of the intervention and will only be briefly introduced in this writing. A more detailed explanation will follow during the discussion of each intervention phase. The common theme in all these theories is the full participation of the actors in the process of learning about their needs and opportunities and in the action required to address them.
This philosophy was considered the epistemological basis of the research process. It gave guidance, orientation, and direction to researcher, the change agent, throughout the study and me. This basis is graphically portrayed in Figure 2.1, indicating how the various theories, approaches and principles were applied. This writing was mainly done for academic purposes to reveal my own thoughts as researcher and conductor of this research effort. Each of the research theories, approaches and principles, as it appears in Figure 2.1 are introduced and discussed with the purpose to assist the reader in formulating a similar philosophical perspective on the study.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The ideology of ‘community development’ is often used as vehicle to bring about change in rural communities. There is no fixed and final definition of development; merely suggestions of what development should imply in particular contexts. It is been described as a normative concept that is value-laden, multidimensional, interrelated, and involving choices about set goals. These goals, within various contexts, all have in common to achieve the full potential of all persons in a community. Development in itself embraces change evolving gradually over time. It highlights the fact that development is a process of continual learning, demanding the participation of all towards self-reliance (Swanepoel & De Beer, 1997:71).
Development can also involve structural transformation, which implies political, social and economic changes (Hettne in Burkey, 2000:33; Coetzee & Graaff, 1996; Wetmore & Theron, 1998). It can also imply the provision of social services or the introduction of new technologies. It is obviously not merely a simple matter of implementing programmes. Development involves changes in the awareness, motivation and behaviours of individuals and in the relations between individuals as well as between groups within a society. These changes have to appear from within individuals and groups and cannot be imposed from the outside (Burkey, 2000:48).
The fundamental objective of development lies in the idea of a world in which each individual has the right to live a life of well-being and worthy of a human being. In any meaningful sense, it will begin with and within the individual. Unless motivation comes from within, efforts to promote change will not be sustainable by that individual. Without such a development within people themselves, all efforts to improve people’s quality of life will be immensely more difficult, if not impossible. The process whereby people learn to take charge of their own lives and solve their own problems is the essence of development (Burkey, 2000:56). Development is not always compatible with theory but should concern itself instead with reality as defined, not by scientists and researchers, but by people themselves (Wetmore & Theron, 1998:35). Burkey (2000:49) very illustratively wrote the following:
“Participatory development is not a patchwork quilt of different coloured components, but a finely woven textile of many coloured threads. These threads are woven together by the people and the pattern is determined by their own needs and priorities”.

Rural community development

The commonly accepted approach to rural community development has been to establish programmes, which treat the community as a more or less harmonious unit (Burkey, 2000:42). It is assumed that individuals, groups and classes in a community have common interests, which are sufficiently strong to bind them together. It is also assumed that these interests are sufficiently common to create general enthusiasm and that any conflict of interest are sufficiently reconcilable. These assumptions have proven to be unrealistic. People in the community that are better off, usually benefited most from programmes, followed by a growing disparity and further inequality.
Given the negative results of programmes for the poor, arising from ‘harmony models’ of community development, an alternative must be used to ensure that the more powerful elements in the community do not receive most of the benefits of developmental activities. Burkey (2000:42) suggests that efforts should be directed to smaller, more homogeneous groups, which is precisely done within this research study.
Sustainable rural development, however, will only be achieved through the efforts of the rural people themselves working for the benefit of themselves, their families and their communities. After decades of paternalism, all too many rural people have come to believe that government agencies are going to develop them. The result was apathy interspersed with peaks of expectation as one or another new development programme comes their way. Rather than promoting development, such programmes have ended up developing ‘dependency thinking’ (Burkey, 2000:43).

CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY

The core concept of the critical social theory is to be found in the idea of transformation. To merely understand and interpret the lives of people is not enough; people need support to change their lives for the better. The aim of social science should therefore be to assist people in different ways to change their lives and liberate themselves. Researchers need to move beyond mere understanding and interpretation of phenomena to emancipation, empowerment and transformation of the people affected by the phenomena. Explanation of phenomena under investigation should thus lead to transformation and change in the world and lives of the people involved. The ultimate epistemological criterion of research should consequently be pragmatic (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:37).
The founders of the Frankfurt School originally formulated a critical social theory in the 1930s. They reinvigorated Marxian orthodoxy and rejected positivism as a worldview of adjustment (Agger, 1991:24). Positivism suggests that one can perceive the world without making assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under investigation. One experience the world as rational and necessary, thus deflating attempts to change it. It reinforces passivity and fatalism. Critical theorists attempt to develop a mode of consciousness and cognition that breaks the identity of reality and rationality, viewing social facts not as inevitable constraints on human freedom, but as pieces of history that can be changed. It has a sort of ‘dialectical imagination’, which Jay (in Agger, 1991:24) defines as “the ability to view the world in terms of its potential for being changed in the future, a hard-won ability in a world that promotes positivist habits of mind acquiescing to the status quo”.
Jürgen Habermas (1988) extended the theory giving it a linguistic turn in the form of his communication theory. He attempted to shift critical social theory form the paradigm of consciousness to the paradigm of communication. He tried to integrate the positivistic emphasis on control with the hermeneutic insistence on communication and added the critical interest of emancipation and transformative science. He introduced the concept of ‘self-reflection’, which determines the meaning of validity of critical propositions of this category. Self-reflection is determined by an emancipatory cognitive interest.
Brian Fay (1975) further developed the work of Habermas. He stated that a critical social science is one that “attempts to account for the sufferings and felt needs of the actors in a social group by seeing them as the result of certain structural conflicts in the social order.” He attempted to explain these conflicts and hence the sufferings and felt needs of the people by giving a historical account in quasi-causal terms. He depicted the latent contradictions between the needs, wants, and purposes, which the social order gives rise to as well as the satisfaction that it provides (Fay, 1975:96).
A critical social science must become part of the everyday life worlds of ordinary people. It should perform an educative and ultimately a transformative role. The aim is therefore to liberate people from their state of alienation through the process of self-reflection to transform or change the human condition through a critique of those alienating or repressing factors, which sustain their alienation/false consciousness/self-deception.
Agger (1991:19) moved critical theory into a third generation, indebted with post structuralism and postmodernism as well as with a feminist version of postmodernism. Postmodernism rejects all appeals to meta-narratives, but celebrates the local, the specific and the differences and accepts the link between inquiry and power. It promises a positive science (universal and objective) as well as an emancipatory science. It further supports the search for concrete, contest-specific and historically situated narratives that are not divorced from the social and political interest of people.
Within the mould of critical social theory, PAR can now be cast.

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (PAR) PARADIGM

“Participatory research was defined as a vivencia (life experience) necessary for the achievement of progress and democracy, a complex of attitudes and values that would give meaning to our praxis in the field. From this time on, PAR had to be seen not only as a research methodology by also as a philosophy of life that would convert its practitioners into ‘thinking-feeling persons’. Then our movement took on world-wide dimensions” (Fals-Borda, 2000: 30).
PAR stemmed from community development movements for oppressed people. It originated as a ‘dialectical response to a contemporary crisis’, referring to the realisation within social science that the knowledge production aspirations of the academics did not inform social practice and the fight for social justice (Fals-Borda, 1991a:4). This contemporary crisis leads to an upsurge on so-called ‘alternative’ research methodologies, which by definition had explicit political goals and commitments, namely to liberate and empower those who were being studied. PAR seems to be an inevitable move towards a new paradigm of inquiry. It has been described, as a method of research where creating a positive social change is the predominant driving force. PAR grew out of social and educational research and exists today as one of the few research methods, which embraces principles of participation, reflection, empowerment and emancipation of groups seeking to improve their social situation (Seymour-Rolls & Hughes, 1995:1).
The following definition of PAR proposed by Whyte (1995:289-290) could be considered a basic definition including the views from different traditions and ideologies:
“Participatory action research involves some members of the subjects of study, participating actively in all phases of the process from the design of the program, through its implementation, and including actions that come with or follow upon the research”.
In the Third World, PAR has emerged as part of the search to render development assistance more responsive to the needs and opinions of the local people. Oppose to conventional research, PAR is defined by an approach that aims to democratise science, to engage the subjects of research as active participants in what is often an interdisciplinary enterprise (Maclure & Bassey, 1991:190). Three particular attributes distinguish PAR from other established research strategies:

• Shared ownership of the research enterprise
• Method of community-based learning
• Aims to stimulate community-initiated action.

Pragmatically PAR is further cited as a cyclical, reflective process. The different elements and aspects can therefore not be arranged in a consecutive order. It may start of with the formulation of a problem, including exploring a need for inquiry and deciding what the purpose of research would be. This may evolve from interactions with members and groups in the field or community. The researcher and research participants then decide together how to conduct the study. Implementation is done by periodic fact-finding trips (household trials) on a collaborative basis. The products/results of the research (also referred to as local theory) are created by using different types of expertise and frames of reference of the participants and researcher (change agent) as a point of departure. The data however, should make sense to the participants, and deployed in terms of their own language and in relation to their own perceptions and values. Dissemination of results should not only be to academic audiences but primarily returned to the participants (Argyris Schön, 1991:86; Greenwood & Levin, 1998:65; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000:595; Seymour-Rolls Hughes, 1995).
The consecutive process of PAR is also described in terms of a cycle surrounding some inner moments, namely that of reflection, planning, action and observation. These research moments exist interdependently and follow each other in a spiral or cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000:597). The most distinctive feature of PAR, which informs and influences all the other characteristics of this paradigm is that it involves participation between the participants and the researcher (Babbie Mouton, 2001:315). Participation as a feature and a dimension of PAR is discussed later in more depth. Other principles that form part of PAR are considered to be:

• The role of researcher as change agent
• The democratic nature of the research relationship Incorporation of local knowledge
• Knowledge generated for purposes of action Ownership
• Empowerment Emancipation
• Collaboration and social interaction Eclecticism and diversity
• Case orientation
• Emergent social process
• Linking scientific understanding to social action
• Recursive (reflexive and dialectical)

(Babbie & Mouton, 2001:315; Greenwood, Whyte & Harkavyl, 1993:178; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000: 595; Whyte, 1991:97).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF BOXES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ADDENDA
SUMMARY
Chapter 1: Background and rationale
1.1 COMMITMENT
1.2 RATIONALE
1.3 THE NUTRITIONAL SITUATION IN SOUTH AFRICA.
1.4 CHALLENGES FOR RESEARCHERS IN SOUTH AFRICA
1.5 PERSONAL VIEW
1.6 COURSE OF THE STUDY.
1.7 OUTLAY OF THE THESIS.
Chapter 2: Philosophical and theoretical drive force of the study
2.1 INTRODUCTION .
2.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2.2.1 Rural community development.
2.3 CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY
2.4 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (PAR) PARADIGM
2.5 DIMENSIONS OF PAR
2.5.1 Participation
2.5.2 Action
2.5.3 Research.
2.6 COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH.
2.7 ADULT EDUCATION
2.8 EVALUATIVE RESEARCH
2.8.1 Various approaches.
2.9 CONCLUSION.
Chapter 3: Research design according to a four-phase framework
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RESEARCH AIM.
3.2.1 Goals and objectives .
3.2.1.1 Phase 1: Situation analysis
3.2.1.2 Phase 2: Design
3.2.1.3 Phase 3: Implementation.
3.2.1.4 Phase 4: Evaluation
3.2.2 Research outcomes
3.3 FOUR-PHASE MODEL
3.4 CONCEPTUALISATION
3.5 STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLE
3.6 METHODOLOGY
3.6.1. Phase 1: Situation analysis
3.6.2 Phase 2: Design
3.6.3 Phase 3: Implementation
3.6.4 Phase 4: Evaluation
3.7 DELIMITATIONS
3.8 CONCLUSION
Chapter 4: Maximising the quality of data and results
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 OBJECTIVITY
4.3 VALIDITY
4.4 RELIABILITY AND DEPENDABILITY
4.5 TRIANGULATION
4.6 ETHICS AND POLITICS
4.7 CONCLUSION
Chapter 5: Situation analysis
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
5.3 DATA GATHERING
5.4 CONCLUSION
Chapter 6: Designing the intervention
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 GAINED DATA ON HYGIENE AND SANITATION.
6.3 VERIFYING AND PRIORITISING.
6.4 ANALYSING
6.5 THEORISING
6.6 THE DESIGNING PROCESS
6.7 SUMMARY.
Chapter 7: Implementation
7.1 BACKGROUND
7.2 PREPARING THE TEAM, PARTICIPANTS AND THE AMBIENCE
7.3 CONDUCTING, COORDINATING AND INTEGRATING
7.4 REVISING
7.5 REPEATING AND REINFORCING
7.6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 8: Applied evaluative research
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
8.3 EVALUATION APPLIED TO THIS STUDY
8.4 DISCUSSION
8.5 CONCLUSION
Chapter 9: Critical reflection
9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.2 AIM AND GOALS
9.3 APPROACH USED
9.4 FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES
9.5 PERSONAL FRUSTRATIONS.
9.6 DELIMITATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND GAPS
9.7 CONCLUSION
Chapter 10: Constructing a generic model
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2 FRAME OF REFERENCE
10.3 EXTERNAL EVALUATION
10.4 ADDED VALUE.
10.5 THE PROCESS FOLLOWED.
10.6 DISCUSSION
Chapter 11: Conclusion
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 VALUE OF THE STUDY
11.3 INSIGHTS
11.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
11.5 FINAL THOUGHTS
References
Glossary 
Addenda
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT