Chivanhu is about twenty kilometres from Masvingo town and two kilometres from the Great Zimbabwe Monument. The Nemanwa area, where Chivanhu settlement is located, is divided into thirty-five wards and the research focused on Ward 12 under the authority of Chief Charumbira. The work focused on households living under seven different village heads but residing in one settlement. Such a scenario is not common in Zimbabwe. The selection of Chivanhu Settlement involved interaction with several key stakeholders from August 2007 to March 2008, and I was fascinated in particular by the fact that NGOs had no presence in the settlement – unlike nearby communal areas. I was curious to find out why that is so, when in some districts in Masvingo Province there were up to twenty organisations purporting to be working and implementing projects in one ward or village.
46 A closer preliminary analysis revealed diverse issues which might contribute to the uniqueness of Nemanwa and specifically Chivanhu. These issues included boundaries of the settlement, historical setup of the settlement, origins of the household heads, community activity, the character of land possession, duration of stay in the settlement and livelihood sources. In this respect, the average land size for the majority of the households is much less than two acres, which is atypical of other rural communities in Zimbabwe where households have larger units of land for agriculture.
I had in worked in Masvingo Province as an HIV and Gender Specialist for an NGO called CARE International from 2003 to 2007 and this proved to be an effective negotiating point for research entry into Chivanhu. Entry into rural communities has been problematic (and in fact restricted) for researchers since the fast track land reform programme started in the year 2000, in large part because of the political tensions which have arose because of it; Chivanhu settlement was no different in this regard during my research period. From my involvement with CARE, I had come to know that the Nemanwa area was characterised by a high HIV prevalence rate and high morbidity. In 2008, soon after I left, CARE started to provide food assistance in the area; but, to emphasise, before 2008 there was no organisation providing any form of assistance to the settlement area. There was also virtually no evidence of any HIV and AIDS organisational structures and support systems operative in the area, and this realisation (along with other issues mentioned) finalised the selection of the settlement for my study.
My choice of the research area was also based on a number of other considerations. For instance, it offered the opportunity to explore the livelihood dynamics of HIV-infected individuals and AIDS-affected households in a settlement that is characterised by high levels of informality and low levels of social cohesion, by people who are of mixed ethnic and different socio-economic backgrounds, and by significant diversity in livelihood activities and household insecurity. The settlement also provided the chance to explore and map out the wider changes in the people’s livelihoods brought about by processes of de-agrarianisation and spatial mobility.
47 Chivanhu settlement is divided into smaller land units, called homesteads. I made a household inventory (involving a survey) of all homesteads with the assistance of three research assistants between September and November 2010. The household livelihood survey was administered to two hundred and forty nine households. I used the results of the survey to identify and profile households which were marked by the presence of HIV- related chronic illnesses, by deaths in the previous twelve months due to HIV-related chronic illnesses, and by the existence of orphans and vulnerable children and widowhood. About 35 households were identified for detailed case histories. The large number of cases identified proved useful during the course of the research, due to high levels of mobility by members of the households targeted for detailed analysis. I had a large pool of identified households for case histories to fall back on in the event of losing track of some of the identified cases during the research. The profiles were triangulated with information from health centre records at the local Opportunistic Infection and Antiretroviral treatment centre and membership in emerging support groups for the HIV- and AIDS-affected. To allow for more focused research, I then selected specific cases from amongst these. I was not seeking statistical significance; rather, the aim was to capture empirically the livelihoods of the HIV- and AIDS–affected and the diversity of livelihoods.
The study focused on one community, namely Chivanhu, because of the (spatial and historical) context-specific character of livelihood and coping strategies of HIV and AIDS-affected individuals and households living in an atypical and marginal rural community. Such a specific focus allowed for a rich, in-depth and nuanced portrait of one community struggling in coming to terms with the complexities and shocks brought upon it by HIV and AIDS. The study is not statistically representative of any broader universe, even of other atypical rural communities in contemporary Zimbabwe. But it does raise a range of critical conceptual themes and empirical trends which are at least illustrative of the HIV and AIDS dynamics and processes elsewhere in rural Zimbabwe. In this sense, the findings emerging from this thesis have wider applicability.
48 3.3 Sequential qualitative and quantitative methodologies
According to Ulin et al. (2002), combining both qualitative and quantitative methods in the research process is heuristically helpful and beneficial in building a more complete picture of the social world of households affected by HIV and AIDS. Qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence are both assumed to have particular strengths and weaknesses, and hence the need for a combination of several forms and levels of evidence to allow for a proper examination and analysis of the broad social setting and specific processes internal to Chivanhu settlement (Gilman, 2002). Therefore, by combining methods, “each one is modified and used with others, producing a hybrid of methods which gives the research multiple sources of evidence with more relevant evidence to give a complete picture of the subject” (Yin, 2003:98). This hybridisation of the research process enables the researcher to identify and pursue the strongest possible methodology for the generation of nuanced evidence in the field (Gorard and Taylor, 2004). It also allows for the crosschecking of results for purposes of consistency and enhances confidence in the research findings (Seale, 2004). Triangulation therefore forms the cornerstone of my research methodology. It is used in this study to develop
“converging lines of inquiry” (Yin, 2003: 98) and to deploy diverse sources of evidence in making any research-based conclusions. As a result, triangulation ensures that the researcher does not privilege per se one particular approach over others and helps in facilitating the exploration of different truths in the research process.
My study adopted in particular a sequential mixed methodology. Both the quantitative and qualitative data sets were critical in the research process. Interviews and focus group discussions were used during the initial stages of the research in the phases from 2008- July 2010. Data and insights gathered during this early qualitative phase helped in the framing and formulation of research assumptions and questions, and laid the foundation for the household livelihood assessment survey. The household survey captured basic demographic and socio-economic information on households, along with orphanhood, chronic illness, AIDS-related deaths, land sizes, consumption patterns and quality of social services in Chivanhu. The information collected through this survey was critical for guiding the researcher in the identification of specific households for in-depth case
49 histories. As well, it revealed the themes and patterns that guided the case history discussions with HIV- and AIDS-affected households. Household livelihood data was revisited (as the case histories were documented) in order to crosscheck their responses and validity. The information from the household livelihood assessment revealed the themes and pattern that guided the case history discussions with HIV and AIDS-affected households.
The research framework is based on the key questions and themes such as the following:
How do households in a community characterised by high rates of HIV and AIDS, particularly a marginal community like Chivanhu, cope and survive if indeed they cope at all? What specific types of adaptation and coping strategies are pursued by HIV-infected and-affected individuals and households? Do the livelihoods and livelihood activities of HIV and AIDs individuals and households change over time insofar as HIV progresses to AIDS? How do households respond to the initiatives undertaken by key stakeholders in a community dealing with HIV and AIDS? Pursuing these themes entails – in a flexible manner – deploying, testing and possibly altering the analytical framework chosen for the study, namely, the sustainable livelihoods framework.
In essence, this entails an examination of livelihood trajectories of households as affected by the epidemic over time (Nkurunziza and Rakodi, 2005). And this is done against a defined set of critical elements pertinent to livelihood outcomes and sustainability success as derived from the existing academic and other literature. Livelihood trajectories are the consequences of the changing ways in which individuals and households construct a livelihood over time and within a specific socio-spatial setting. These changes (or adaptations) are contingent responses to sudden shocks and long-term alterations (sometimes structural) in the broader ecological, economic, social and political context;
these adaptations in turn may shape, albeit only insignificantly and piece-meal, the prevailing context. As well, there are informal and formal institutional arrangements, often entailing interventions to counteract the effects of HIV and AIDS, which are prevalent within Chivanhu. To map all this out, historical evidence at individual, household and community level is vital and it must be linked to more systemic processes
50 even at national level. Besides offering rich analytical insight, such an approach will also provide useful understandings and assessments for policy and programmatic changes in making more effective interventions against the HIV and AIDS pandemic in Chivanhu and beyond.