This research project was completed by two American and one African student, although data gathered by an additional African student will be quoted throughout this report. The research’s main goal was to compare and contrast the two different cultures with the main focus being on the differences and complexities of families. The study’s scope extended beyond analyzing differences between two cultures and focused on differences between case studies of individual families as well.

The study elected to focus on the structure of family, where structure here did not only mean the physical make up of families but also how they are run. Practices of different types of families were explored to find out how they coped with their daily lives and struggles. The research assessed what is considered the “normal” family against other possibilities in non nuclear families in order to document their similarities and differences. The purpose of doing this was to learn about how the families run, how they interact with each other or with other networks, and how they evolve over time. Popular family discourse is full of assumptions that come with the effort to adjust to changing circumstances around the world. For an in depth analysis, this research narrowed down its focus to the difference in gender roles within the contexts of how different people conceptualized families. This analysis did not stop at gender differences between men and women, but it further explored the differences between the views of genders in the two cultures, questioning how a society viewed a man and a woman and what was expected from each. Some of the questions used in this analysis are how do gender roles transfer into or out of the home?, do trends in African families resemble those in America?, what strides may women have made towards their empowerment and how far could they be restricted?, has gendered relations remained the same over time or are they changing?

In asking these questions, the key goal would simply be to answer the question; how can we understand the complexities arising in families as a result of their quests to cope with daily challenges? Struggles in families can be anywhere from divorce to coping with gender roles.

Literature Review

We defined family as being described as two or more people who play different roles that affect each other’s lives on a daily basis and who engage in similar activities. These articles were all about the complexities and issues in families. Specific focus’ or themes discussed here relate to changes occurring in modern families, how gender affects or is affected by relations among family members and how families allot roles amongst members.

The typical family has been referred to as the “nuclear” family in which one would follow a typical family cycle including courtship, marriage, children, and grand-parenting. Other types of non nuclear families would be single parent homes, step family formations, or gay/lesbian households. With time comes change and over the years there has been an increase in these non nuclear families which correlates strongly to the increase in divorce rates. Even the process of divorce has changed with time. According to Silva and Smart (1999), this is the era of “settlement,” in which parents come to an agreement about their children through negotiations rather than through the courts. There has been a major shift from the courts to administration.

Gender and sex are not synonymous; gender unlike sex is not a biological process but rather a product of society (Perry-Jenkins, 1999). It has also been described as the creation of two categories of workers who need each other. These two categories of gender would be men and women. Men are gendered to be strong and powerful while women are gendered to be soft and compassionate. Morgan (1996) identifies four characteristics of gender. First, all situations are gendered; second, gender is not only about women but also about men; third, gender relations have public and private aspects and should cover both faces, and lastly that gender is a process and not something that we possess. Women and men have both made strides towards closing the gap between the two gender roles. We can measure the change of gender through the intimacy between couples, the time and use of masculinity and fatherhood, and the personal views on division of labor.

The issue of gender becomes more of an issue in the home when it comes to the roles that family members are expected to follow. Muncie, et al (1995) in their book, Understanding the Family, state that “the ideology of family gives the ultimate control to men,” argue that it is generally followed that women are seen as the care givers and take care of the home while men are seen as the bread winners and heads of the household. These roles are learned at a very early age, and from the moment we enter this world we are surrounded with expectations due to our gender – a process widely accepted and termed socialization. Accordingly, boys are brought up to think in terms of work outside the home and girls to think in terms of marriage and children. Morgan (1996), however, challenges the concept of socialization on the grounds that it takes for granted individual people’s discretions in making personal relational decisions, ignores the influences of other relationships that people belong to, such as friendships, and cannot account for the origins of gendered values or expectations in the first place. Modern families are more balanced than past ones, but we are far from eliminating gendered roles in the home (Sullivan, 2004). Research done on “symmetrical” families, which exhibit equal division of labor, revealed that women are still seen as being the main caregiver of the children.

It is more acceptable now for a woman to receive an education, work, and contribute to the income. A woman can work and be a mother or she can chose, if financially able, to stay home with her children. This decision is ultimately based on whether being a good mother to a woman means as “being there” for her children or if it means providing for them. Some women believe that working contributes to their sense of being and also see it as being a good role model for their children; others chose to stay home and look after their children. One woman in the book, Rethinking Families, claims that she couldn’t “see the point in having babies if you weren’t going to look after them yourself.” Years ago a woman would not have much of a choice; her place was at home with her children. Now a woman can weigh the pros and cons of each option and decide what is best for her and her family.

Morgan (1996) thinks that “all situations are gendered, although very few, if any, are purely a matter of gender,”. This shows that all literature discussed here start and end with gender. Mostly in society and households, men are seen as being dominant while women are seen as more subservient. Even with the many changes that have happened on the gender landscape, existing knowledge suggests that women continue to be seen as care giving homemakers and men as the wage earners.

Methodology

This research was conducted within the Participatory Action Research designs (International HIV/AIDS Alliance), which empowers the informants, or rather participants, with some degree of control on the data collection and analysis processes through its utilization of non-conventional and user-friendly tools and methods. Four different people, two African and two American, were interviewed about their families and how they interpreted relations between members and practices of dealing with various socioeconomic realities that faced their families. In this sense the research applied the case study method. The study was comparative in so far as it gathered information on peoples’ lives and cultures based on where they live and how they were raised.

In conducting the interviews, researchers did not make any effort to define families, but asked interviewees how they defined their families. These interviewees were given pseudonyms in order to keep their identities confidential. They were also asked to sign a consent form, which explained the purpose of the research and assurances that information from respondents would remain confidential. (See Appendix A) Two tools were used to conduct the interviews: Tool 47: Life History, from the PLA book written by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, which allowed interviewees to tell the story of their lives, about their relationships, culture, education, work, and religion. (Reference Appendix C) It also allowed the researchers to learn about their family roles.

With the aid of an interview, participants were asked a series of questions (reference Appendix B) and wrote down their answer verbatim. These questions contained information about their dwelling and organization of family life, family roles and family member status, their paid and unpaid labor, family rituals and ceremonies, and many other topics. These questions were asked and the ones that were related, and the ones that the interviewee was able to answer were included in Appendix B. Most of the responses were written verbatim, though some were not. At times, researchers reworded some questions in order to probe for more in depth answers. The answers to questions gave the researchers alternative perspectives of reflecting on their lives, and the relationships that affected them.

Tool 11: Social Networking Maps helped us to create genogram’s (Appendix C) on these individuals’ lives, which show how people are related to each other through various means and illustrate linkages of relationships among people, cultures, and disease. They were used when analyzing the differences among the specific groups of people. A timeline to show how people spent their time over the course of the day was completed to clearly demonstrate the role of gender in families’ divisions of labor. Tool 16: Daily Activity Charts (Timelines) facilitated the exploration of how people from different cultures use their time. It revealed the different responsibilities that individuals have within their families and cultures, and deepened understanding of the importance of these events to a specific culture (See Appendix C). This tool also goes hand in hand with Tool 26: Gender Roles Chart which is where it shows the differences between gender and their roles within everyday life. This is also included in the timelines that were filled out. This timeline shows the differences among gender roles versus the community, economy, as well as roles within the family itself.

After reflecting on our research, we feel that we could have gathered more data that would have helped deepen the understanding of differences in culture. Tool 24: Division of Labor Chart which we did not use, would have shown the roles and responsibilities that are carried out by different members of the community and/or family. These would be broken down and based on men, women, and children. With an additional chart showing how and why roles are divided, researchers feel that data in this report would have been richer.

Another idea to enrich the research would have been to conduct more interviews than just four. Each researcher conducted one interview, which gave this total. With more interviews much more diversities could have been exposed, more information generated and more valuable lessons illuminated. This information on the individual lives, family roles, and culture could have allowed us to go more in depth with the information we proposed, and learn more about the individual cultures. We could have also added more questions specific to our research and probed deeper into discussion with the interviewees.

Nonetheless, this study’s in-depth exploration of four families extracted very rich information that can be used to develop themes for further exploration. One of this is how gender and generations interact, especially considering that some of the interviewees were parents and others were children in their families. Further study may need to interview children and adults from same families and compare the results in order to come up results related to gender and generations.

Results

Perceived and actual characteristics of African and U.S families

The research showed heterosexual marriages and subsequent bearing of children as the original foundations of all four families. Melissa observed: “once you get married you (have to) move out and start your own little family.” Theresa moved in with Denis once they got married and they relocated to Charlotte, North Carolina, when their two children were aged five and eight while Mandisa’s delivery of her first child spelt her separation from her parents’ home to start her new single-parent family. Though they subsequently divorced, Melissa’s parents started their family by getting married, with Melissa and her brother’s births cementing the family.

Asked to define families, Theresa identified a “typical family” as one that includes “a wife, husband and children”, although, as she noted, “nowadays many families… such as same-sex families, single parent families and divorced couples with children having step parents… do not meet (those) traditional standards.” Melissa viewed families as “people who care about each other, some who share blood, (and others who) do not.” In line with this care-based definition, African families cared or the sick, elderly and accommodated extended family members more than did U.S ones. Volleyball’s family cared for her sick grandmother while Mandisa did her high school under her maternal aunt’s care. In both cases, no prior negotiation or advance request was made to the family expected to provide the care, as paternal and maternal relatives and grandparents seemingly considered it their right to be cared for. For this reason, Volleyball felt that “one family cannot make it on its own, (but needs) strong links with other (extended paternal and maternal) families.” Care for the sick, elderly, paternal relatives and grandparents among U.S families on the other hand were not entirely, if at all, family-based but institutionalized. “Our parents do not live with us,” said Theresa. “My mother lives in a senior-citizens’ home and my husband’s father… in his own house.” Further, added Theresa, “when Denis’ mother was ill and dying it was his father who took care of her” before a professional nurse was engaged to take over the job. Melissa concurred: “most times though, their families put them (the sick) in nursing homes and just visit.” The study showed a link between family sizes and the closeness of caring relationships among families, with African families being larger than U.S ones. While U.S families included one or both parents and two children each, with limited involvement in relatives’ affairs, African ones altogether comprised four parents and 13 children with wide extended family networks (grandparents, paternal and maternal relatives).

Gender and role allocations in African and U.S families

In all families, men, women, boys and girls performed different roles, but whereas African ones attached masculinity and femininity to the roles, personal choice, not gender, determined who did what among U.S families. Theresa paid family bills because, as an accountant, she enjoyed it while her husband, a professional chef, “cooks most of the time.” Related to this, U.S and African parents instill contrasting gender values into their children. Among African families girls are accorded the “responsibility to keep the house clean, to offer and serve visitors food... and to stay indoors” (Volleyball) and are expected to advance their education, get a job, a husband and to help their parents support other children (Mandisa). Melissa, meanwhile, was “taught to be a strong independent woman (in order that she) would be respected for that.”

Fig 1: Time allocation for tasks among African Families (av hours/day)

Fig 1: Time allocation for tasks among U.S Families (average hours per day) Based on daily schedules of male and female family members
With regards the distribution of paid and unpaid work, U.S families qualified as dual-earner family types and African ones as the husband-breadwinner[1] type (Perry-Jenkins, 1994) because, as shown in Fig 1 and 2 below, women in the two U.S families were employed outside the home while both African mothers were domestic homemaking housewives. Fig 1 and 2 also show that U.S men and women as well as boys and girls spent the same amount of hours on almost all activities while gender differences were more clearly marked between African men and women, boys and girls. African girls and women spend more time than male family members on unpaid homemaking work while boys and men were more involved in agricultural work than women and girls. On the other hand U.S mothers spent just one hour per day on homemaking work, which they did voluntarily, not as an obligation. African boys used the hours that girls spent on unpaid homemaking for recreation (watching television and visiting friends). U.S Boys and girls spent longer hours on education than African ones.

U.S families lived together, while the two migrant African husbands lived separate from their children and wives for long periods, with little contact. Melissa and her brother actually shared more time with her divorced father than Volleyball and Mandisa saw theirs. Despite their long absences from their families, African men exercised more decision making power than did U.S ones who spent more time with their wives and children. Mandisa’s statement: “my father was the decision maker…” and Volleyball’s “my father makes the final decisions” contrast Theressa’s “my husband and I run the house”. While customs in Mandisa’s family make her youngest brother the heir to their parents’ estate, Theresa’s family would distribute property equally among children under the guidance of wills. “We do have wills,” she said. Further, ability to exercise control over one’s life decisions before marriage was found among U.S and not African women. Theresa turned down Denis’ marriage proposal in Germany because she disliked relocating, forcing him to return to the U.S to propose again. Unlike both Volleyball and Mandisa, she did this under no parental pressure to find a husband and unlike Mandisa; no pregnancy-induced desperation obscured her judgment or composure!

Socioeconomic factors affecting African and U.S families

U.S families generally had more resources at their disposal than African ones, with larger living space and the luxury of communicating with relatives via ‘Facebook’ (Theresa’s children) – a modern technological system out of the reach of Mandisa and Volleyball. Migration among African families was done for purely economic reasons and sacrificially, with husbands having to live separate from their wives and children for several months (Volleyball and Mandisa’s fathers). In the U.S, entire families migrated together as a personal choice and for such reasons as “a better weather and change of environment.” Having to care for extended family relatives, African families had larger dependency ratios (dependents per breadwinner) than U.S families.

Analysis

This analysis identifies three loci as marital status or social characteristics of family pioneers, usually parents, dynamics of parental economic dependency and caring relationships in families. Common references by some respondents to “single parent families”, “same sex parent families” and “divorced parents” illustrate the centrality of the social characteristics of family-pioneering adults in how families are defined. References specifically made to parental marital status signify the commonality of families that are founded on heterosexual marriages. This shows how aggregate occurrences in families obscure isolated and yet realistic possibilities centered on children’s characteristics. There is therefore no mention in popular discourse of “step children families”, “sons only families”, “daughters only families” and so forth. The result: social security programs to support children such as South Africa’s Child Support Grant do not target children directly, but via their parents or ‘primary caregivers’. Considering their application of stringent means-testing to screen ‘deserving’ beneficiaries (Lloyd, 2000), their omission of genuinely needy children who do not live with an adult is imminent.

Relationships associated with giving and receiving care can be used as an alternative reference for defining families where heterosexual marriage bonds between family-pioneering adult’s collapse, as in the case of Melissa’s parents, or when the perceived value of marriage falls below that of caring relationships. It is therefore not surprising that Volleyball, whose family had cared for her grandmother before she died and constantly exchanged mutual support with paternal relatives, argued that one family “cannot make it on its own.” Melissa, whose parents were divorced, defined a family in terms of people’s caring about each other.

Economic dependency relationships can form the basis of defining families when family activity revolves so much around parents’ efforts to fend for their children and extended families that one, or both of them, has to migrate between towns and jobs to boost family income. In such circumstances families are defined in income earning terms as dual earner (U.S) and husband breadwinner families (Africa). Family activity here that does not directly feed into family survival, such as children’s going to school, is automatically relegated to the periphery and no mention is made of such possibilities as, for example, “multiple student” families.

The study’s findings additionally explain family belongingness, revealing that families in Africa and the U.S accommodate members counted as parents, children or siblings only as long as they remain primarily dependent on the family’s members and resources. They forfeit their rights as dependents or occupants of ‘family homes’ once they secure alternative support in the form of a spouse or introduce a secondary dependent to the family by bearing a child – a rule that is seemingly enforced more consistently on African girls than it is on boys. No family member, it therefore appears, can multiply or add secondary members without being counted out of their original families. Jobless and homeless Mandisa’s premarital pregnancy, Melissa’s father’s splinter relationship with his girlfriend and Theresa’s marriage to Denis all ended with the cessation of membership rights to their original families and beginning of their new families. Volleyball’s continued stay at her original family home could be subject to her unmarried status.

Social constructions of entitlement to resources of families additionally define family membership in both the U.S and Africa. In the U.S where patient care is institutionalized and, according to Theresa, nuclear families are common enough to deserve the “traditional standards” tag, the elderly and sick relatives could not claim rights to physical or emotional care from their children’s families. They were thus treated within their own or nursing homes. In Africa where the extended family is a source of social security, an ill elderly patient received care within her child’s family (Volleyball’s family) and a maternal aunt readily accommodated a niece even though living space at her home was inadequate (Mandisa).

In line with post modernism, lived experiences or the insider’s perspective proved to be the best source of knowledge about families. All perspectives of viewing family in the results section reflect individuals’ lived experiences. For instance, Theresa who moved to a new town with her husband and children to live a quiet life could not view the “typical family” beyond the scope of two heterosexual parents and their biological children. Her mention of other family types was not without a reminder that these deviated from “traditional standards.” Melissa, whose father left her mother for a girlfriend, could only define family in terms of “caring about each other” because she and her brother had enjoyed their mother’s single-handed care as they grew up. She subsequently regarded her father as a friend, which demonstrates how her special experience of growing up with one parent changed her definition of a true family.

Finally, the research’s findings on gender and the distribution of responsibilities and labor within families confirm the feminist portrayal of families as sites of power relations involving continuous negotiation and contestation between men and women. Relating to this, African rather than U.S families fit Hartmann’s view that “the division of labor by gender tends to benefit men” (1987:114). This is because U.S men, women, girls and boys shared roles equally while African ones did so in a gendered way that strengthened the positions of men at the expense of women’s. Walby (1989:214) defines patriarchy in line with African families’ practice as “a system or social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women”. Nonetheless, comparing or analyzing gender relations within African and U.S families outside the context of their respective socioeconomic environments will fall short of the truth. Fig 3 below, illustrates the complex interplay between socioeconomic variables and gender in families to account for differences between African and U.S families. It shows that U.S families enjoy wide ranging social services, including institutionalized care for the elderly and the sick, which in Africa are regarded as an obligation for families. The practice of referring back chronic HIV-infected patients from hospitals to their families for home-based care, for

Africa: Bigger dependency ratio and heavier burden amid a poorly rewarding formal social security system on labor market

U.S: Smaller dependency ratio in better economy with more lucrative formal social security system: lighter burden

Africa: Women get married before they are ready for economic independence; they become housewives, or are further disadvantaged by being impregnated and dumped

U.S: Women get married when they want and are ready. They know the channels of protecting their interests if they are dumped or divorced and can better sustain themselves than African women.

Africa: Sole breadwinner husband with wife and many children

U.S: Dual earner couple; husband, wife and few children

Africa: Heavier pressure is imposed on children to pursue high education, secure jobs and on daughters to get married to husbands

U.S: Children are not under parental pressure to get a high education, get jobs or husbands; they can take their time to make life decisions

Africa: A husband becomes a priced asset to be found at all costs because securing one is understood as ‘decency’, which takes away girls’ bargaining power

U.S: A wife is a priced asset pre marriage to whom a man has to propose and beg for her hand in marriage, kneeling on one knee. She has bargaining power to dictate terms well before the marriage

Fig 3: Comparison of cycles of gender relations among African and U.S families
example, is peculiar to Africa. In addition, African women’s lower literacy rates readily push them out of the labor market into domestic homemaking and child bearing to propel African men to being sole breadwinners. Further considering Morgan’s (1996) argument that families can construct gender if, as in Africa, bearing children marks one’s wo/manhood, the larger sizes and heavier dependence loads among African families is not surprising. This overall scenario sustained the cycle illustrated and described in Fig 3 above.

Conclusion

Defining families is almost always tantamount to reviewing diverse social constructions that exist. People will always understand families from their individual world views by quoting aggregate occurrences none of which, however, can exhaust the multiple possibilities that emerge from families’ quests to cope with changing realities. The loci of activities around which family being revolves tellingly dictates the perspectives from which people construct African and U.S families out of recurrent occurrences, as shown in the table below.

Definitive perspective	Locus of family activity	Family types that fit definition
Family-pioneering adults’ social characteristics	Social characteristics and relationships between adult(s) who started a family	Nuclear families, single-parent families, same-sex parents
Care giving and receiving relationships	Family members’ care for each other, for the elderly and the sick	Extended families
Economic dependence relationships	Family members’ provision for each other’s material and financial needs	Dual-earner families, sole (husband) breadwinner families
Parental income earning responsibilities	Distribution of income-earning and homemaking responsibilities	Dual-earner families, sole (husband) breadwinner families

This study’s comparison of two U.S and two African families shows sharp differences in family practices between these two world sites and justifies the postmodern recommendation that realities of families should be understood from an insider’s perspective. Evidence of Theresa’s family, which is the nuclear type, almost persuades anyone never to refute famialists’ portrayal of nuclear families as the absolute order, but the instant transformation of Melissa’s formerly nuclear family into the single-parent type after her parents’ divorce proves how mobile and dynamic families can be. Even Theresa, who held nuclear families to be the ‘traditional standard’, did embrace this dynamism by acknowledging several other family types such as divorced-parents families. In addition, the migrations of Volleyball’s and Mandisa’s fathers in search of better paying jobs and their long spells of separation from their wives and children is evidence that the famialist view of “the family” as a breadwinning father, homemaking housewife and dependent children living in one household belongs to middle class nineteenth century Europe. This dynamism across regions and a long time confirms Morgan’s (1996) conclusion that families constitute a practice that we do and not an institution to which we belong. So, we do family more than we passively act as parts thereof.

It can be further concluded that all social activities cannot be centered on individual families (famialialism) alone, as this study showed that U.S families depended on other institutions such as nursing homes and technological devices such as the Internet (Facebook) to achieve such family ends as the care of their sick or elderly and communication with relatives respectively. In Africa, neighbors, maternal and paternal relatives were prominent providers and recipients of care and support.

The study’s findings on gender and distribution of tasks and responsibilities show that socioeconomic factors and human relations are inseparable. On the surface, U.S men may be seen to be naturally sensitive to the needs of women and African men as insensitively oppressive. But considering that the bulk of literature on gender inequality and male domination in families is based on researches done in the U.S and Europe, it may be safe to conclude that African families are simply going through a historical phase that U.S families passed by several centuries ago. On the evidence of this research, families mean different things to different people and there can be no grounds for judging the practices of some families as being better than the others’. The best that can be done is to understand the circumstances, especially socioeconomic ones, which prompt families to behave in specific ways.

Bibliography

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J (2008): The Practice of Social Research, Oxford University Press, New York

2. Charron, M. Personal Interview. August 28, 2009

3. Cheal, D. (2002): Sociology of Family Life. Palgrave.

4. Cochrane, A., Dallos R., Munice, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Understanding the Family. The Open University.

5. Dick, T., Vaughn, A., Makoni, K. & Qashani, B: Interview reports. September 1, 2009.

6. Hartmann, 1983:194, in Morgan, D., H., J., 1996: Family Connections: An Introduction to Family Studies, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Polity Press

7. International HIV/AIDS Alliance. (2006). Tools Together Now. United States Agency for International Development.

8. Lloyd, I (2000), Policy Performance of the Child Support Grant: 1 April 1998 to 30 June 199. Unpublished memo

9. Morgan, D., H., J., 1996: Family Connections: An Introduction to Family Studies, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Polity Press

Muncie, J., Wetherell, M., Dallos, R. and Cochrane, A. (Eds), 1995: Understanding the Family, Sage Publications
Perry-Jenkins, M., 1994: The Family Division of Labor: All Work is Not Created Equal, in Sollie, D. L., and Leslie, L. A., 1994: Gender, Families and Close Relationships: Feminist Research Journeys, Sage Publications
Silva, E., & Smart, Carol. (1999). The New Family? SAGE Publications Ltd.
Sullivan, O., 2004: Changing Gender Practices Within the Household: A Theoretical Perspective, Gender and Society Vol. 18 No. 2, April 2004: 207-222
Neale, B., & Smart, Carol. (1999). Family Fragments: Polity Press.
Walby, 1989:214 in Perry-Jenkins, M., 1994 Willams, F. (2004). Rethinking Families. United Kingdom: Calouise Gulbenkian Foundation.

Appendix A: Consent Form

SA Families and Households

Instructor Contact Information:

Vivienne Bozalek; University of the Western Cape: vbozalek@uwc.ac.za

Judy Aulette: University of North Carolina: jraulett@uncc.edu

Nicolette Roman: University of the Western Cape: nroman@uwc.ac.za

Jules Nshimirimana: University of the Western Cape: jnshimirimana@uwc.ac.za

Dear Participant

The University of the Western Cape and the University of Carolina, in the United States of America, have joined to conduct research with regard to families. This research is part of a larger teaching and learning project called, South African Families and Households. The purpose of the joint project is to join instructors, who teach, and students, who learn, at these two institutions. The focus is on Family Studies: How similar and different families are in different countries/cultures. The team of designers and instructors of this project are the following people:

Vivienne Bozalek; University of the Western Cape

Judy Aulette ; University of North Carolina

Nicolette Roman; University of the Western Cape

Jules Nshimirimana; University of the Western Cape

The abovementioned people have been and are still involved with this teaching and learning project and wish to share the experiences of the project with a wider audience. This information will be shared through

conference presentations and by writing journal articles and book chapters on the work achieved in this project. This letter is to ask you whether you would be prepared to participate in this study and give us permission to use the information provided by you in this research which will be shared with others.

Please consider the following in your response:

You are requested to give permission to participate in the study.
Whether or not you give this permission, is entirely your personal decision, and it is entirely voluntary.
There will be no rewards for giving this permission, as there will of course be no penalty for refusing it.
You have a right to withdraw your permission at a later stage – so long as it is before any publication – and we would then not include your story in the research.
We would use your e-learning contributions for the purpose of research only and not for any other purpose.
You may withdraw from the research study at any time.
Your name and any other names you refer to will not be used and you will therefore be anonymous.
All information provided by you will be strictly confidential.
There are no correct or incorrect answers when participating in this study.

Consent form

I, _________________________________ agree to participate in the study and give the people mentioned above, who have been involved with the planning and implementation of this project, permission to use the material.

I understand that those involved in planning and implementing this teaching and learning project are intending to share the work generated in the module in the form of publications and conference presentations.

I also understand that:

Whether or not to give this permission is a personal decision, and it is entirely voluntary.
There will be no rewards for giving this permission, as there will of course be no penalty for refusing it.
I have the right to withdraw my permission at a later stage – so long as it is prior to any publication – and the researcher/s then refrain from including my story in their research.
The researchers would use my stories/drawings for the purpose of this study only and not for any other purpose.
The identity of myself or any other person included in my story will be protected.

My name above and my signature below indicate my permission to use the material I have generated on the SA Families and Households e-learning course:

Signed at ________________________ (Place) on _______________________ (Date)

__________________________________________ (Name)

PLEASE NOTE:

If you have any further queries in addition to what has been explained in the attached letter or the consent form, please do not hesitate to contact the Course Instructors, whose e-mail details are given at the beginning of the attached letter

Appendix B: Interview Questions

4.1 Dwelling and Organization of Family Life

(a) What type of dwelling does the family live in? How does the family organize the living space? Who sleeps in what room? How is the work and living space divided? How crowded is the household?

(b) How is family defined? Are there families that did not meet traditional definitions?

How are they perceived and treated?

(d) Are there any special arrangements for sick family members (e.g. disabilities, contagious like diseases, TB, HIV and AIDS?

(d) Who constitutes the household? Do married sons and daughters continue to live in their parents’ household? Do ageing parents live in their children’s household, in their dwellings, in residential communities or old age homes? Are there other members of the household who were not living with the family e.g. boarders, domestic workers?

(d) How are orphans and other vulnerable children accommodated?

(e) What effect does the dwelling have on the way the family members relate to each

other and the community?

4.2.1 Patterns of work: Unpaid Labor

(a) Who is involved in the daily preparation of food, cleaning the home? Is

domestic labour in the house performed on a paid or unpaid basis?

(b) Who cares for and rears the children? Who looks after the family members

who are sick, disabled or elderly?

cause on the family?

(d) How did the family deal with infectious diseases like HIV and AIDS and TB?

(e) How are these family members handled? Are they accepted or rejected?

(f) Have family members changed at all in their conceptions of what women’s and

men’s roles in caring for others and domestic chores are?

(g) Are children involved in caring for other family members?

(g) Are the children involved in different work from that of their parents? Why/ why

Not?

(h) Do you think that childcare and housework should be private, unpaid tasks done

only by women? Why/why not? Do you think it should be performed by children? Why/why not?

4.2.2. Pattern of work Paid Labor

(a) Do sons and daughters leave/remain at home when they start work? If they

left, when and why was this?

(b) What is the family’s attitude towards women seeking paid employment?

the household? What sort of work are wage earners involved in and for how

many hours a week? Ask the member to complete the Hourly Activity

Schedule

4.3 Effects of Racism

Dominelli (1991) distinguishes between three types of racism:

4.3.1 Cultural racism - which endorses the supremacy of beliefs and values of white

culture.

4.3.2 Institutional racism - by this is meant the public power and authority which

ration power and resources by excluding Blacks eg. Access to empowerment,

education, housing health and welfare resources, land etc.

4.3.3 Personal racism - attitudes and behaviors’ which result in a negative

prejudgment of racial groups.

Of course the three types of racism are interconnected and the other usually promotes the one.

Questions

In examining the three types of racism identified above explain in detail

a) How have family members been affected by each one?

b) How have family members coped and supported each other in dealing with them?

4.4.1 Family Relationships/Status of Family Members

(a). What status is given to older people within the family’s culture?

(b) How are women viewed within the family? What is their status in relation to other

family members?

(d) How does the family handle spouse, child and elderly abuse? Which age groups are involved in/excluded from this? Are elders of the community/members of the

external family involved?

(e) How does the rearing of children change the status of the women in the family and the family as a whole? How were children treated? Are there different

attitudes towards boys/girls children? Are children regarded as a means and

source of security in old age? Who disciplines the children and

how is it done?

(f) By whom and how are the values and norms in the family transmitted? Name three values that are regarded as most important

g) Describe patterns of communication in the family.

(h) How are family problems resolved

(h) How is conflict dealt with?

(i) How does the family cope with crises such as imprisonment, death, divorce etc.?

(j) Describe what happens during family meals. Are certain family members given

privileges over others? Where do family members have their meals/ Is everyone

together? Who sits where?

4.4.2 Decision making

(a) How are key decisions made (e.g. having children, approval of marriage, care

of children, sick, elderly, religion etc.)

(b) How are decisions on daily family business made?

4.5.1 Family Rituals and Ceremonies

(a) What is the daily schedule of family members?

(b ) Describe the type of rituals and ceremonies held in the family. How are

weddings, baptisms, deaths, important life cycle stages e.g. adolescence,

initiation and other ceremonies held? Who attends? Where are they held?

What happens at these events? What is the value of the

ritual to the family and its culture?

sport, welfare work, civics etc.)

(d) Religious involvement.

(e) Who visits whom, how frequently and over what period of time? In African

families people simply visited each other irrespective of their status. Has this

changed?

4.5.2 Family and Property

(a) Who owns property in the family and how did they acquire it?

(b) Do the women receive dowries e.g. lobola? What effects did this have on family relationships?

4.5.3 Migration and the Family

(a) Did the family migrate, and if so what were the reasons? (influx control, forced

removals, Group Areas Act, economic reasons, transport problems etc.)

(b) What effect did this have on the family?

4.5.4 Community Resources and Influences

(a) What community resources are not available to assist the family ?

(clinics, child-care facilities, schools, welfare organisations and libraries).

(b) What effect does the lack or availability or resources have on family life?

(b) What other resources are available which the family could turn in cases of

crises and problems? E.g chief, elders and friends

benefit of the family? How are services advertised?

(d) Are community resources seen as a first or last resort in solving a family

problem? Explain.

(e) If there is a lack of resources what does the family ascribe this to and what

action have family members taken to obtain these resources?

(f) Evaluate the community’s influence on the family (drugs, gangs, friendships, how

education is valued in the community, civic affairs intercommunity conflicts)

[1] Dual earner families are those in which both a husband and his wife work outside the home and earn money. Husband breadwinner families are those in which the husband alone is gainfully employed

Appendix C is google.docs