3.1 Research design
3.1.1 Elements of Community Action Research
The aim of the action research design is to bring about a social change in the participants (supported by De Vos, 2000). Community members, who would usually be seen as the subjects of research, are seen as capable of co-creating their own reality.
Data are collected in cooperation with identified research participants (referred to, in this study, as 'community researchers' [CRs]) who are empowered by the researcher to undertake their own research (De Vos, 2000). The purpose of using such a type of design is supported by Rahman (1993) cited by De Vas (2000 p18) who "states that people want to stand up, take control over what they need to work with, do things themselves in their own search for life and move forward, supporting one another."
Such an approach is pertinent owing to the current water situation whereby water activists require hard-core data to support their advocacies for the reform of policies. If a researcher approached this type of data collection through the conventional approach of monopolising ownership and control of the process of research, he/she would not only limit the participants' ability to understand the prevailing systems and seek community solutions, but would also deny the participants the opportunity to take the issues forward through mass advocacy for an improved life-situation (Terre Blanche and Durrheim, 2002). Community Action Research (CAR) is an approach whereby identified community members themselves become researchers and can draw on their own collected data to facilitate commwlity wlderstanding, engagement, mobilisation and collective strategies to challenge the prevailing norm (consistent with Terre Blanche and Durrheim, 2002).
Communities, community liaison individuals and community researchers identified. The processes for future research, water issues, prevailing communication structures were discussed.
Community researchers provided with research-related information to ensure that decisive choices and options were considered. Objectives for research were stated.
Methodologies were chosen and implemented and tools synthesised for use.
.Respondents were identified, pilot study conducted, adaptations made and time frames implemented for research. Researcher facilitated organisation of community researchers and obtained a commitment by all to become research partners. Monitoring and control mechanisms were discussed and im lemented.
Surveys were conducted within given timeframe. Community researchers were involved in a two-day workshop to critically reflect research findings, fill in gaps, build consensus, capacity and validity. Community researchers were assisted to document their findings, articulate experiences and evaluate·
rocess.
Action strategies on extending and disseminating findings were discussed and implemented. Findings of research were disseminated through a 'door-to- door information campaign' and local newspaper supplements to conscientise communities. Municipal departments and NGOs were engaged to triangulate data.
Researcher and community researchers facilitated community workshops;
conducted to provide information, promote community buy-in and solidarity.
Community task teams (included community researchers and interested community members) were formed and a community action plan was initiated to support reforms. Researcher and community researchers created community platforms for community issues through existing structures or throu h those created in fi ure 3.2.
Action plan was evaluated, adapted and synthesised for a joint approach with researcher, community researchers, community task teams and wider community. Community task teams reviewed progress collectively and formulated future course of action.
Researcher's role was changed to a supportive role. Communities initiated advocacy strategies in the support of reforms through the Water Action Campaign (see figure 3.2). Researcher role eventually phased out.
Figure 3.1: Model of Community Action Research process (adapted from the participatory action research model: Rahman, 1993 as cited by De Vos, 2000 p416).
Incorporating the chief characteristics of Participatory Action Research (PAR), as identified by De Vos (2000), CAR uses alternative systems of knowledge, which are based on the community researchers' involvement in decisions regarding the questions to be asked, who the respondents will be, how the questions will be asked, what role the researchers will play in data gathering, how the data will be interpreted, the development of models and programmes, and the evaluation of all processes. Hence, the actual research is subservient to the emergent processes of collaboration, mobilisation, empowerment, self-realisation and the establishment of community solidarity (De Vos, 2000).
The action research design is an empowering type of intervention and includes building alliances and networks, improving communication systems and reframing issues (Terre Blanche and Durrheim, 2002; Hart and Bond, 1995). As defined by De Vos (2000), empowerment is a process of increasing personal, inter-personal and political power, enabling individuals to act in cooperation to improve their life-situation. Mobilisation is a direct result of empowerment and refers to the engagement by large masses of people in a collective action (comparable with De Vos 2000). Mobilisation takes into account the nature of the problem and the availability and structural features (density, size and nature of support networks), which determine the character of the mobilisation. Social support structures were initiated by research participants where they were absent, used where they already existed and built on where existing structures were weak (by building networks and support mechanisms, consistent with De Vos, 2000). Two different structures, operating at different levels, were created during the study: the Water Action Campaign and community task teams. The Water Action Campaign provided a platform for engagement on fundamental water issues and policy debate, infonllation sharing and water-related advocacies. Community tac:;k teams, based in each participating community, were used to facilitate a local platform for the discussion of pertinent issues (refer to figure 3.2). The structures were implemented to ensure that debates and actions resulting from the analyses of the data were adequately housed and supported through information sharing, capacity building and group cohesion. The structures, although proposed and initiated by the researcher, were accepted and supported by the community researchers.
Figure 3.2: Engagement and advocacy structures.
The last and fundamental element of community action research is that of community managed and directed action. The actions were founded on community-elicited data, community decision-making and planning. Communities determined and identified the strategies necessary to advocate for reforms and implemented these strategies supported by broad community mobilisation (community action was still pending and therefore was not documented in this paper).