MTS focussed on questions related to the presence of discussions and information about HIV and AIDS on campus, issues and needs related to HIV and AIDS in parishes and communities, and perceptions regarding HIV and AIDS. Questions related to this contextual category, I hoped, would lead to information that might be used to better assess and understand the seminary‘s response to this issue of extreme importance to all members of the LEC and the communities in which they live.
Poverty
HIV and AIDS have had an intensifying effect on a problem faced by many Basotho – poverty. The United Nations Development Programme 2009 Human Development Report lists Lesotho in the bottom quintile regarding human development, a measure combining information about poverty, education, life expectancy, and access to resources:
This year's HDI, which refers to 2007, highlights the very large gaps in well-being and life chances that continue to divide our increasingly interconnected world. The HDI for Lesotho is 0.514, which gives the country a rank of 156th out of 182 countries with data.85
A 2006 draft document, entitled, ―Poverty Monitoring Master Plan‖ prepared as a part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy process in Lesotho, defines poverty:
The Basotho definition of poverty is powerlessness, exclusion and denial of access to basic human needs resulting in lack of capacity to influence direction of one‘s own life. Dimensions of poverty that are not money-metric include lack of human capability, limited access to productive assets, inadequate knowledge and information, the presence of ill-health and malnutrition, powerlessness, low self- respect and self-esteem, vulnerability and insecurity (2006, 3).
The report continues by listing causes of poverty in Lesotho:
Main causes of poverty in Lesotho have been identified as: unemployment, low levels of savings and investment, declining agricultural production due to drought, frost and poor farming techniques, highly skewed income distribution, insecurity and the high rates of crop and livestock theft, HIV/AIDS pandemic, poor delivery of services and corruption (2006, 3).
A 2006 report written for the United Nations Development Programme also highlights the combinations that have led to continued and increasing poverty in Lesotho and reductions in overall human development:
85 One component of the HDI (Human Development Index) is a measure of Human Poverty. UNDP‘s Human Poverty measurement information for Lesotho:
The HDI measures the average progress of a country in human development. The Human Poverty Index (HPI-1), focuses on the proportion of people below certain threshold levels in each of the dimensions of the human development index - living a long and healthy life, having access to education, and a decent standard of living. By looking beyond income deprivation, the HPI-1 represents a multi-dimensional alternative to the $1.25 a day (PPP US$) poverty measure. The HPI-1 value of 34.3% for Lesotho, ranks 106th among 135 countries for which the index has been calculated
(http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_LSO.html).
Almost seven years into this century, Lesotho has been faced with a combination of problems that do not seem to be amenable to easy solution, and that threaten to hold back, even reverse, its socio-economic progress. The nexus of the mutually reinforcing effects of chronic poverty, inequality and food insecurity is being compounded by the impact of the pervasive and growing HIV epidemic. At present, most of the components of Lesotho‘s Human Development Index (a composite indicator of quality of life used by UNDP to rank countries in terms of overall social progress) have shown downward trends (UNDP Lesotho 2007, 1).
LEC parishes – especially those in Lesotho, and especially in rural areas – experience poverty as an ongoing reality. Pastors trained at MTS will likely work within communities in which poverty is an important factor in the lives of the people. My selection of Poverty as a contextual category was an acknowledgement of the pervasive reality of poverty in Lesotho. Further, it reflected the spoken concerns about poverty I had heard voiced by many pastors, theological students, and church members throughout the LEC. Research questions related to poverty focussed on perceptions of respondents about the presence and nature of poverty in the LEC, and respondents‘ opinions regarding the role MTS has played and can play in equipping pastors to respond with knowledge and compassion to issues of poverty in local communities.
Each of the six contextual categories outlined above was an integral part of the programme of research I conducted within the LEC. Though many of my questionnaires, discussions with respondents, and personal observations often focussed on each of these contextual categories separately, I want to reiterate that (as indicated graphically as ―Correlational Hexangulation‖) they are interconnected and interrelated categories, and help to shape and change the wider contexts within which theological education occurs in the LEC. In the midst of thoughts and questions regarding these contextual categories, I focussed upon identifying and interacting with respondents in each of six participant categories: MTS students; MTS Staff; MTS Board and Administration;
LEC Clergy; LEC Laity; LEC Executive Committee. Following a brief explanation of the request and approval process for this research project, each of these participant categories will be discussed briefly (below).
Research Request and Approval Process
In January of 2005, after having served as an instructor at MTS for one and a half academic years, and having considered my initial impression that perhaps the programme of theological education at MTS could be better suited to the needs of the LEC, I contacted the Director of the Seminary, Rev. Dr. A. M. Moseme, to ask him what he would think of a possible project of research that would employ mixed methods to inquire into the current practices and expectations regarding theological education in the LEC. Dr. Moseme was very open to the idea, and asked that I return to speak with him again once I had constructed a more specific research design. I also spoke with Rev. T.S. Lentšoenyane, at that time the Executive Secretary of the Lesotho Evangelical Church, and my teaching colleague at MTS and the National University of Lesotho. Rev.
Lentšoenyane and I discussed my research proposal at length while sharing car rides to Roma from
74
Maseru. Rev. Lentšoenyane was also open and receptive regarding the preliminary plan of research, and encouraged me to continue.By March of 2005 I had developed the matrix I have labelled ―Correlational Hexangulation‖ and so I arranged to meet with Dr. Moseme to present the plan for a mixed- methods inquiry focussing upon the six contextual categories and six participant categories I was proposing, and to indicate my hope that this research would be conducted as a part of the PhD programme at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Dr. Moseme agreed that it seemed to be an appropriate initial plan of research, and that he would be glad to cooperate in any way he could, as long as I was doing the research to be helpful to the LEC and to MTS. I assured him that my intention was that the research would provide information that would be helpful to the school and to the Church as they worked to discern the best way forward with regard to preparing students for Christian ministry in the LEC. Dr. Moseme reminded me of the importance of speaking with the President of the LEC, Rev. J. R. Mokhahlane, regarding this research, and asked that I arrange to speak with him. Once I had the permission of Rev. Mokhahlane, Dr. Moseme said, he (Moseme) could give his full consent and approval.
The LEC President, Rev. Mokhahlane, agreed to meet with me and to review my research ideas. I presented him with a preliminary draft of the research proposal I was preparing for the university and reviewed the reasons for my research and my proposed method of proceeding. Rev.
Mokhahlane encouraged me to begin the research, and shared that he would look forward to seeing the results of my inquiries and that he would assist me in any ways he could. At that time I shared with Rev. Mokhahlane that an important feature of my research design would be meeting with the MTS Board and the LEC Executive Committee to review and discuss preliminary research findings. I shared with him my conviction that the research would be incomplete without Board and Executive Committee input. He assured me that he would help to make those important meetings happen when the time came. Rev. Mokhahlane asked whether I had discussed the research with Dr. Moseme. I confirmed that I had, and that Dr. Moseme had referred me to Rev.
Mokhahlane. Rev. Mokhahlane indicated that it was appropriate that Dr. Moseme had referred me in this manner, and advised me that I could now enter into further conversations with Dr. Moseme as my research began. Later in April I reviewed with Rev. Mokhahlane the final draft of my research proposal for the university, and he approved it and certified, using the LEC stamp and his signature, my application documents for the PhD programme.
MTS Students
Perhaps the participant category with the most pervasive and current interaction with the many facets of theological education at Morija Theological Seminary are the Theological School students themselves. The students, men and women from various presbyteries throughout the LEC, participate in campus life through classroom lectures and activities, worship planning and
participation, and social interactions with one another and MTS staff members. Their responses were an important part of the information collected as a portion of this programme of research.
During a student meeting on campus I informed all TS students about my research programme, and indicated that their participation, if any, would be completely voluntary. I further informed them that the research had been approved by Rev. Mokhahlane and Dr. Moseme, and that any responses the students made to research inquiries would be anonymous. Students were invited to complete questionnaires on a Saturday morning during the 2005-2006 academic year in the seminary lecture hall. All TS students on campus at the time chose to participate, and twenty-one questionnaires were completed. Prior to beginning their work on the questionnaires, I gave each student a letter (see Appendix B) outlining the research, and verbally reviewed the letter with them.
Students were encouraged to ask questions, and were reminded that their research participation was completely voluntary.
The ―Morija Theological Seminary Student Questionnaire‖ was an eight-page questionnaire, using mostly statements to which responses were requested using a Likert-type scale. The questionnaires were presented in English. Response categories ranged from ―Strongly Disagree‖ to ―Strongly Agree‖ on a five point scale. Three items of identifying information were requested on each questionnaire: whether the student was attending MTS and lived on campus; the student‘s academic level (TS1, TS2, etc.); the student‘s gender. The questionnaire was divided into sections relating to the six contextual categories of the research design. The longest section, that corresponding to ―Campus Life and General Course of Study,‖ contained fifty items. The second section, that corresponding to ―Field Education,‖ contained fourteen items, and was labelled for completion by TS5 students only (those students who would have completed a Field Education assignment). Sections corresponding to each of the four remaining contextual categories comprised the remainder of the student questionnaire. Questionnaires were returned to me that morning, and results have been tabulated and recorded in a response key. The student questionnaire format and response key can be found in Appendix C. These questionnaires, along with written questionnaires for members of the other participant categories, were intended as a beginning inquiry, the responses to which would help to identify and delineate further inquiry as well as guide me in constructing and conducting personal and focus group interviews.
At the time of the administration of the student questionnaires I informed the students that I would be conducting interviews about the life and work of the seminary, and that I would be glad to interview any student who volunteered. Ten students volunteered to be interviewed over the course of the next several months. Interviews were semi-structured conversations during which I pursued questions related to the primary concerns of the six contextual categories of the research programme. Interviews were conducted in English. Each student was encouraged to provide a pseudonym for himself or herself (all did), and were given consent forms to read and sign. The interviews were recorded on a digital audio recording device, and students were asked if they would consent to allowing my spouse (also an instructor at MTS) to listen to the recordings and