+1 862 207 3288 South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 2010, pp. 318-326
The hidden resilience of street youth
Macalane J. Malindi and Linda C. Theron School of Education Sciences, North-West University (Vaal Triangle Campus), Vanderbijlpark, South Africa Macalane.Malindi@nwu.ac.za;
Linda.Theron@nwu.ac.za The phenomenon of resilience among street children as a group of at-risk youth goes unnoticed, since they are not typically regarded as resilient. Street children are
mostly categorised as vulnerable youth who need care and support, and this deficit view ignores the assets and resources that enable them towards resilience. Nevertheless, street children are
remarkably resilient. Using a qualitative approach (semi-structured and focus group interviews), we explore the hidden resilience of 20 street youths in the Free State and Gauteng. The findings
transform the popular conceptualisation of street youth as vulnerable and, instead, paint a picture of young people who negotiate resilient trajectories, strengthened in part by personal
resources (that are typically unconventional), bonds to their peer groups, and religiosity, to cope resiliently with the multiple challenges of streetism. Keywords: assets, hidden resilience;
protective resources; resilience; street youth Street children exhibit powerful signs of resilience, albeit hidden. ‘Hidden resilience’ (Ungar, 2004) is a relatively novel concept, which refers to
patterns of living that may not always fit in with mainstream psychological theories, or community conceptualisation, of socially appropriate behaviour, but that nevertheless encourage youth
to bounce back from hardship. Traditionally, street children are not viewed as resilient. Rather, they are conceptualised as vulnerable, deviant, and maladaptive youth who suffer from a range of
psychological disorders (Cockburn, 2004; Donald & Swart-Kruger, 1994; Guernina, 2004). Their patterns of living and risk are seen as almost synonymous: in addition to the complex social and
familial risks that compel street children to choose life on the streets, on the street, they are vulnerable to all sorts of additional risks such as reckless motorists, inadequate shelter, abusive
police officers, drugs, crime, prostitution syndicates, and bigger/older street youth who taunt and intimidate them (Frykberg, 2007; Human Rights Watch, 2003; Mathiti, 2006). More recently,
some emerging literature (Bottrell, 2007; Cockburn, 2004; Conticini & Hulme, 2007; Donald, Lazarus, & Lolwana, 2006; Kombarakaran, 2004; Madu, Meyer, & Mako, 2005) has begun to challenge the
notion of street children as helpless and hapless beings. This is where we position our article. Drawing on emergent literature that describes street youth as hardy and our work with street
children, our aim is to delineate the antecedents of hidden resilience in and among street children and to demonstrate that street children do navigate towards, and negotiate for, resilience
resources, albeit in unconventional ways. In this sense, we argue for the recognition of street children as resilient and acknowledgement that their resilience is often obscured by societal
attitudes and practitioner expectations that these children are vulnerable. Health care professionals, as well as social service practitioners, will note from this article that street children have
individual assets that, combined with ecological resources, enable resilience. As such, our article has the potential to move street children theory away from a deficit approach and to
contribute to a transformed perspective of street children (Mertens, 2009). Our findings have the potential to nudge practice away from the traditional medical-model treatment approach that
focuses on what is wrong (Duckworth, Steen, & Seligman, 2005; Engelbrecht, 2008; Peters, 2004) towards an asset-based approach (Ebersöhn & Eloff, 2006) that conceptualises street youth as
co-authors of their enablement. Hidden resilience and street youth The concept of resilience has been the subject of vigorous research over the years, but, in essence,
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
319
it refers to positive outcomes despite experiences of adversity (Masten, 2001; Masten & Obradovic, 2008). The role of ecological protective resources (such as supportive families, health-
promoting schools, community organisations, cultural rites of passage) in buffering the potentially harmful effects of risk processes is recognised (Armstrong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, & Ungar, 2005;
Masten & Reed, 2005; W ard, Martin, Theron, & Distiller, 2007), along with the individual’s role in navigating towards, and negotiating for, resilience-promoting resources. In other words, resilience
refers to the capacity of individuals to navigate their way towards resources that sustain well-being, the capacity of the individual’s physical and social ecologies to provide resilience-
promoting resources, and, lastly, the capacity of individuals, families, and communities to negotiate culturally meaningful ways to share resilience resources (Ungar, 2008). At-risk youth,
including street children, often demonstrate hidden resilience, which, as noted earlier, involves non-typical pathways to health-promoting resources. These non-typical pathways do not fit in
with regnant theories of child development, but they do promote a sense of meaning, purpose, participatory opportunities, belonging and attachment, recreation, financial stability, personal
and social power, social support, food, and shelter (Ungar, 2004). At-risk youth often use what society labels ‘problematic’ as pathways to resilience (Ungar, 2006). For example, it is common
knowledge that street children actively adopt unconventional coping mechanisms that include deliberately wearing old, dirty clothes to elicit pity in the public, begging or engaging in petty
theft to survive, sniffing glue to numb themselves to life’s hardships, and prostitution. Despite the risks inherent in these mechanisms, they enable street youth to negotiate daily risks, survive
street life, and fulfil their needs for self-sufficiency and self-determination (Sauvé, 2003). Although these coping mechanisms may be labelled socially ‘unacceptable’ or ‘maladaptive’, they cannot
be written off, as resilience can be hidden in alternative, marginal, and often destructive behaviours (Bottrell, 2007; Donald & Swart-Kruger, 1994; Kombarakaran, 2004; McAdam-Crisp, Aptekar, &
Kironyo, 2005; Ungar, 2004). In other words, adopting streetism is an unconventional expression of independence away from homes that are characterised by conflict, violence and experiences of
insignificance, a desire to cope with adversity, and a way of navigating towards resilience resources (Donald et al., 2006; McAdamCrisp et al., 2005; Vogel, 2001). This navigation is fuelled by
personal agency and by ecological resources. Street children organise themselves into socially cohesive groups, which offer security and emotional attachment (Awad, 2002). A child who joins
street life is adopted and initiated by an experienced group of street peers (Vogel, 2001). The subsequent sense of belonging serves an adaptive purpose, since a sense of helpfulness, a sense of
being valued, empathy, resourcefulness, and mutual aid are gained (Awad, 2002; Cheunwattana & Meksawat, 2002; Sauvé, 2003). In addition, street children are often ecologically supported
towards resilience by kind strangers, social workers, and NGOs (D’Abreu, Mullis, & Cook, 1999; Kombarakaran, 2004). Earlier studies noted intrinsic assets that encouraged resilience in street
youth, including humour, ingenuity, and tenacity (Evans, 2002). M ETHOD Our method evolved. Initially, we planned to introduce an intervention that might enable street youth. In order to
comment on the usefulness of the intervention, we adopted a pre-test, post-test design (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). In the pre-test, we used the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) to
measure resilience and discovered that the street youth who completed the CYRM recorded higher levels of resilience than both South African and international resilient youth who participated
in the International Resilience Project (IRP, 2006) (see Figure 1). In order to understand this phenomenon, we interviewed 20 street youths. W e report the insights that emerged from this
qualitative research.
320
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
Figure 1. CYRM scores Participants Twenty participants (17 boys, three girls, Sesotho and isiZulu) were originally recruited to participate in the intervention study. The ages of the participants
ranged from 10 to 17, and all participants attended school. Fourteen participants were from the Free State province and fell into the category of children on the street, meaning street children
who spent time on the streets earning some money to supplement family income while maintaining links with their families (Ayuku, Devries, Mengech, & Kaplan, 2004; Pare, 2004). The other six
participants were from the Gauteng province and fell into the category of street children in institutional care, meaning erstwhile hardcore children of the street who were accommodated in a
shelter or institution (De Moura, 2005; Tolfree, 2003). Originally, we used a non-probability, convenience sampling strategy (Maree & Pietersen, 2007). W e chose participants for practical reasons
(McBurney & W hite, 2004): they could assemble at the drop-in centre (as in the case of the 14 children on the street) or at the shelter (as in the case of the six street children in institutional care).
These participants were easily accessible to us because we were acquainted with non-governmental organisation (NGO) representatives and social workers who worked with these youth. The
NGOs, therefore, served as gatekeepers (Terre Blanche, Kelly, & Durrheim, 2006), mainly because they had vested interests in the rights, welfare, and well-being of the children in their care. The
youth were ethically recruited to participate in the intervention study (Strydom, 2005). Following the CYRM results, we re-recruited the participants for the interviews by explaining that we
needed them to help us understand resilience among street children. W e explained that there were no foreseeable personal risks or benefits to their participation, but that what we might learn
from them would probably make a difference to how researchers and practitioners conceptualised and treated other street youth. They volunteered to take part in our study. Process The
individual interviews were semi-structured and conducted with the 14 Free State youth by the first author in Sesotho. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and translated into
English. The individual interviews lasted between 35 and 45 minutes each. The interviews took place at the drop-in centre after school. The basic questions included:
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
321
W hat do you think you need to grow up well here? W hat kinds of children grow up well under the circumstances you find yourself in? W hat does it mean to you when others succeed? W hat
would you say are the main challenges for you growing up here? W hat does it mean when bad things happen to you or those close to you? W hat or who helps you to cope with the bad things
that happen to you? Please give me examples of problems you had and explain how you dealt with them? W hat do other people do to cope with the bad things that happen to them? Are there
any stories you can tell of people who were in difficult circumstance but are successful in life now? 10. How does your culture help you to cope with difficult situations? After translating the
interviews, the second author wanted some of the responses to be clarified or explored further. For this reason, shorter follow-up interviews were conducted with the participants. This exercise
gave us the opportunity to probe further so that we could develop more trustworthy data. The first author, furthermore, conducted a focus group interview with the six Gauteng participants
(using the same semi-structured questions). This interview was also audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. The interview lasted 105 minutes and took place at the children’s
shelter after school. Analysis W e (the first and second authors) read the transcripts independently. After multiple readings we independently labelled relevant parts of the data as they emerged
(that is, we assigned inductive codes to data that shed light on participant resilience) (Nieuwenhuis, 2007). W e independently grouped these to form themes that explained our participants’
resilience (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). Although we focused on what emerged from the data, we were influenced by our knowledge of resilience theory and previous studies of resilient street
youth (Bottrell, 2007; Donald & SwartKruger, 1994; Kombarakaran, 2004; McAdam-Crisp et al., 2005). In this sense, our analysis was both deductive and inductive (Merriam, 2008). Following this, we
held vigorous consensus discussions during which we compared our coding and revisited the emerging themes (Nieuwenhuis, 2007). W e further heightened the trustworthiness of our findings by
returning to some of the participants and asking them to critically comment on our interpretation. W e also engaged in peer debriefing (Creswell, 2009; Nieuwenhuis, 2007) by asking a social
worker attached to local NGOs to comment critically on our emerging findings. By seeking divergent perspectives we pursued rigour and attempted to limit bias in our interpretation (Creswell,
2009). W e triangulated the themes emerging from the individual interviews with those in the focus group interviews thereby strengthening the confirmability of our findings (Creswell, 2009). W e
searched for rich excerpts to illuminate the emerging themes in an effort to further the dependability of our findings and to guide possible future replication (Nieuwenhuis, 2007). Ethics W e
received written permission from the relevant NGOs to conduct the study. This study was also ethically cleared by our institution. W e adhered to the ethical principles as set out by the Health
Professions Council of South Africa (2006). We were mindful that street children are vulnerable to abuse as a disenfranchised group and we took pains to explain our study to them in detail. The
rights of the participants were paramount to us. The participants volunteered and consented to participating by signing consent forms, which were co-signed by their parents, guardians, and/or
caregivers at the drop-in centre and shelter.
322
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
FINDINGS Our street participants attributed their resilience to personal resources (a sense of humour, assertiveness, agency, and self-regulatory skill), to their peer group, and to their religion.
Individual resources The participants were strengthened by humour , which they derived from teasing one another: “ Ja [Yes], you can tease one another and laugh to forget about the bad
things. If you have stress and someone cracks jokes you laugh and the bad thing gets out of your mind ” (Focus Group Participant [FGP] 2). Participants commented that they teased one another
to forget about the stresses of street life and to shift their thoughts away from what was worrying or angering them. In this sense, humour appeared to be an adaptive defence mechanism (Carr,
2004) even though teasing is often not considered socially acceptable. Assertiveness is one of the characteristics of resilient people (Ungar, 2008). The participants in our study were likewise
assertive and could stand up for themselves. For example, Participant G said: “ If someone does something I do not like, I immediately tell him that I do not like what he is doing .” Sometimes, the
participants demonstrated assertiveness in unconventional ways. For example, they related stories of fighting for their rights, especially since they were growing up without protection from
adults. In this regard, Participant N said: “… if someone hits me, I hit him back .” At times, fighting included violence: “… if violence occurs and you can’t avoid it, just fight and defend yourself. If
the person is bigger and stronger I stab him and as you know that is how you get into even bigger trouble ” (FGP 4). In other words, some participants relied on unconventional strategies to
survive threatening treatment and used violence as a last resort, ever mindful that it could complicate their lives. The participants told stories that demonstrated agency as instrumental to
their resilience (Schoon, 2006). They took action to deal with the challenges they faced. Often, this included socially appropriate forms of agency, such as asking for help if needed. Participant H
related: “ Due to poverty at home no one could buy me clothes but I spoke to the care-givers here [at the drop-in centre] and they went to my home and after assessing the situation they
provided us with food and clothes .” However, all the participants also adopted socially inappropriate forms of agency to provide for their basic needs, including begging and isolated acts of
vandalism: “ They go to town to beg for money while some go to public phones and wait for people to make calls and then vandalise the public phones to get the money to buy food ”
(Participant I). Others were willing to lie to survive difficult circumstances: “I realised that I was in trouble then. They [the police] asked me how old I was and I lied and said I was 15 … ” (FGP 3).
Their behaviour alludes to hidden resilience: these maladaptive acts facilitated coping with difficult lives (Kombarakaran, 2004; McAdam-Crisp et al., 2005:71). Similar unconventional, agentic
behaviours have been attributed to other groups of resilient youth (Ungar, 2004). W e found it interesting that participants related stories that showed skill to regulate themselves socially . This
included adjusting their public behaviour: “ I also agree that we must respect other people or else people might just think we children from the shelter do not respect other people … None of us
must be seen smoking [sniffing glue] what we smoke [sniffing glue] ” (FGP 4). In other words, these youth understood that to grow up well in their given community, they needed to demonstrate
respect for the community’s values, even if they had a different set of values in private. It also included asking forgiveness when their behaviours had wronged others: “ I stole my mother’s
money and she became very angry with me. I went back to her and asked her forgiveness. She forgave me ” (Participant I). The ability to regulate oneself socially is an important resilience
resource (Ungar, 2008). The peer group as resource The benefits of belonging to a group of street youth are seldom recognised by theorists and practi-
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
323
tioners (Donald et al., 2006). Nevertheless, our participants clearly benefited from the sense of belonging that their peer group afforded. In response to a question about what made life difficult,
Participant A related: “ Mothers abandon their children, go to Gauteng and never come back to them … they are usually not as happy as children should be …. [So] we tell friends [fellow street
youth] who then try to cheer you up .” These friends cheered one another up in a number of ways, including helping participants to adapt to street life and find good shelters. For example, FGP 6
related: … I used to stay at another shelter before now. The care-givers there were bad and did not treat us well. They did not allow us any freedom at all … we were not allowed to leave the
premises ? I went out for about two hours. When I came back she assaulted me. She did not punish me in a way a parent should, she went to excesses like pushing me hard against walls. I decided
to leave and the child I met on the streets told me about this shelter and I came here … I feel better now . Another function of the peer group related to sharing coping skills and shaping more
acceptable behaviours. Participant H explained: “ I used to bunk school and join my friends who were not in school and we used to smoke dagga but I stopped smoking dagga last year when I
came here [to the drop-in centre] because the street children I now associate with do not smoke dagga .” Once adopted into a peer group, participants could rely on their peers for advice and
meaningful support: “ I know that I can rely on my friends here at the centre, they are always available when I need them for anything ” (Participant L). Such support included assistance with
school work: “ Children here fight sometimes but at school we support each other, even with school work ” (Participant C). There was a sense of family and a belief that they were unfailingly
there for one another. Lived experiences of peer group support were reciprocated by participants, who shared their meagre supplies of food with others and who tried to encourage street
children to navigate towards available resources: “There are other street children out there and I try to encourage them to come here so that they can also learn to make beads … to make a
living in future .” (Participant H). Religion as resource As in other studies of resilient youth (Dass-Brailsford, 2005), participants reported how their religion enabled resilience, primarily by helping
them to feel strong. Prayer was central to their hardiness: “ Some mothers are alcoholic. They drink and do not provide food for their children, but if such children pray and persevere they will
succeed … Yes, when life is hard, I pray … and I gain power ” (FGP 2). Prayer also mediated magnanimity to others: “ My mother then neglected me and did not buy me anything, you see. But I
pray that the Lord should help me to succeed in life and I will buy her things when I succeed in life ” (FGP 6). Their belief in a higher power guiding their lives aided navigation towards community
resources (such as shelters): “I never thought I would live here at the shelter but I think it was God’s plan for me to be here … He removed me from the street and I can see that life has changed
for all of us here ” (FGP 7). Some of the participants related that church attendance helped shape their behaviour and was a source of moral support: “I love going to church because there they
teach you what is right and wrong and when I have a problem I can talk to the Pastor for advice ” (Participant D). DISCUSSION Resilience was central to the stories told by the street youth in this
study. As such, the findings add to nascent descriptions of street youth as hardy (Bottrell, 2007; Donald & Swart-Kruger, 1994; Kombarakaran, 2004; McAdam-Crisp et al., 2005). Moreover, the
findings boost the relatively novel understanding of hidden resilience (Ungar, 2004) — clearly street youth bounce back because they are not afraid to navigate unconventional paths.
324
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
Although participants reported many instances of normative resilience-promoting mechanisms (such as asking for help, being assertive, reciprocating support, and making the most of shelters),
their resilience was also informed by unconventional practices (including teasing one another in an attempt to provide humorous relief, engaging in violence, vandalising public property, telling
lies, bonding with other street youth) and by values not typically associated with street youth (such as religiosity and purposeful regulation of behaviour). As with other cohorts of youth whose
resilience are typically overlooked (Bottrell, 2007; Kombarakaran, 2004; Ungar, 2004), participants combined pro-social practices and unconventional mechanisms to rebound. W hile behaviours
such as vandalising public property or stabbing an assailant cannot be condoned, they emphasise that street youth possess agency and assertiveness that can be channelled. Stories of street
youth adjusting their public behaviour suggest a streetwise savvy, ingenuity, and flexibility. They also contradict perceptions of street youth as unmindful of the norms of society (Cockburn,
2004). In other words, embedded in the unconventional practices recounted by our participants are the seeds of resilience. Rather than judge or stereotype street youth, theorists and
practitioners need to acknowledge that these coping mechanisms contain embryonic antecedents of resilience and nurture them. It is not expected that street children are religious (Guernina,
2004). Their religiosity is obscured by prejudice, as is the rich resilience-promoting value of street youths’ peer group (Donald et al., 2006). The finding that participants’ resilience was rooted in
religion and peer-group belonging warns against traditional stereotypes of street children and their peer groups as deviant and maladaptive (Cockburn, 2004; Guernina, 2004). These findings
challenge service providers and mental health practitioners to recognise and build on resilience-promoting values and practices of street youth. All of the above cautions against a charity
approach of rescuing street children (Tolfree, 2003). It also militates against the age-old deficit perspective of street children as perennially vulnerable (Kruger & Richter, 2003; Schimmel, 2006;
Van Rooyen & Hartell, 2002; Vogel, 2001). Instead, the findings urge recognition of street youth’s strengths and of the embryonic forms of their resilience and an asset-based approach (Ebersöhn
& Eloff, 2006) to interventions with street youth. The transformed perspective of street youth as resilient young people implies that they should be co-authors of any interventions aimed at
enabling them further. Our study has limitations, with implications for further research. The sample size was limited and skewed in terms of gender. Furthermore, all the participants had access
to basic resources (for example, schools, meals at the drop-in centre, security at the shelter). More extensive studies with street youth (especially youth who do not have easy access to basic
resources) and with female street youth are needed to gain an even deeper understanding of the resilience typically hidden in streetism. CONCLUSION Our findings transform the popular,
medically inclined conceptualisation of street youth as perennially helpless, vulnerable and maladapted. In its place, we paint a picture of young people who negotiate resilient trajectories,
strengthened in part by personal resources (albeit unconventional), bonds to their peer groups, and religiosity. This strength-based approach is in line with positive psychology, which focuses
on unearthing strengths or assets that maintain wellbeing rather than on weaknesses that negate wellness (Duckworth et al., 2005). This does not mean that we whitewash the many challenges
street youth face or condone antisocial coping mechanisms. Instead, we urge celebration of their rich ability to bounce back. In a country such as South Africa with its legacy of negative
stereotypes and fundamental disrespect for fellow human beings (Jansen, 2009), it is high time that we extend respect to street youth as well and celebrate their resilience while amplifying its
antecedents. REFERENCES Armstrong, M.I., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., & Ungar, M. (2005). Pathways between social support, family
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
325
well-being, quality of parenting, and child resilience: What we know. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 269-281. Ayuku, D.O., Devries, M.W., Mengech, H.N.K., & Kaplan, C.D. (2004).
Temperament characteristics of street and non-street children in Eldoret, Kenya. African Health Sciences, 4, 24-30. Awad, S.S. (2002). The invisible citizens roaming the city streets. Educational
Review, 54, 105-113. Bottrell, D. (2007). Resistance, resilience and social identities: reframing problem youth and the problem of schooling. Journal of Youth Studies, 10, 597-616. Carr, A. (2004).
Positive psychology. The science of happiness and human strengths. New York: Routledge. Cheunwattana, A., & Meksawat, P. (2002). Small is beautiful: the library train for homeless children.
Library Management, 23, 88-92. Cockburn, A. (2004). Context for street children. Cape Town: Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town and the Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social
Security. Conticini, A., & Hulme, D. (2007). Escaping violence, seeking freedom: why children in Bangladesh migrate to the street. Development and Change, 38, 201-227. Creswell, J.W. (2009).
Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. D’Abreu, R.C., Mullis, A.K., & Cook, L.R. (1999). The resiliency of street children in Brazil.
Adolescence, 34, 745-751. Dass-Brailsford, P. (2005). Exploring resiliency: Academic achievement among disadvantaged black youth in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 35, 574-
591. De Moura, S.L. (2005). The prevention of street life among young people in Sao Paulo, Brazil. International Social Work, 48, 193-200. Donald, D., Lazarus, S., & Lolwana, P. (2006). Educational
psychology in social context. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Donald, D., & Swart-Kruger, J. (1994). The South African street child: developmental implications. South African Journal of
Psychology, 24, 169-174. Duckworth, A.L., Steen, T.A., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. http://www.arjournals.annualreviews.org. Accessed on 26 May 2009.
Ebersöhn, L., & Eloff, I. (2006). Identifying asset-based trends in sustainable programmes which support vulnerable children. South African Journal of Education, 26, 457-472. Engelbrecht, P. (2008).
Changing roles for education support professionals. In P. Engelbrecht., & L. Green (Eds), Promoting learner development: Preventing and working with barriers to learning (pp. 17-29). Pretoria: Van
Schaik Publishers. Evans, R. (2002). Poverty, HIV, and barriers to education: Street children’s experiences in Tanzania. Gender and Development, 10, 51-62. Frykberg, M. (2007). Cairo’s invisibles.
Cairo: The Middle East. Guernina, Z. (2004). The sexual and mental health problems of street children: a transcultural preventative approach in counselling psychology. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 17, 99-105. Health Professions Council of South Africa. (2006). Ethics/Professional Conduct. http://www.hpcsa.co.za. Accessed on 12 April 2009. Human Rights Watch. (2003). Charged
with being children: Egyptian police abuse of children in need of protection. http://www.hrw.org. Accessed on 17 September 2008. International Resilience Project. (2006). The International
Resilience project: Final report. http://www.resilienceresearch.org. Accessed on 18 February 2009. Jansen, J.D. (2009). Knowledge in the Blood. Confronting race and the apartheid past. Cape
Town: UCT Press. Kombarakaran, F.A. (2004). Street children of Bombay: their stresses and strategies of coping. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 853-871. Kruger, J.M., & Richter, L.M. (2003).
South African street children at risk for AIDS? Children, Youth and Environments, 13. http://cye.colorado.edu. Accessed on 6 April 2009. Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research.
Planning and design. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Madu, S.N., Meyer, A., & Mako, M.K. (2005). Tenacity, purpose in life and quality of interpersonal relationships among street children
in the Vaal Triangle townships of South Africa. Journal of Social
326
South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 40(3), September 2010
Science, 11, 197-206. Maree, K., & Pietersen, J. (2007). Surveys and the use of questionnaires. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 155-170). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. Masten, A. (2001).
Ordinary magic: resilience process in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. Masten A.S., & Reed, M.J. (2005). Resilience in development. In C.R. Snyder., & S.J. Lopez (Eds), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 74-88) New York: Oxford University Press. Masten, A., & Obradovic, J. (2008). Disaster preparation and recovery: lessons from research on resilience in human
development. Ecology and Society, 13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org. Accessed 8 July 2009. Mathiti, V. (2006). The quality of life of “street children” accommodated at three shelters in
Pretoria: an exploratory study. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 253-269. McAdam-Crisp, J., Aptekar, L., & Kironyo, W. (2005). The theory of resilience and its application to street children in
the minority and majority world. In M. Ungar (Ed.), Handbook for working with children and youth: pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts (pp. 71-85.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McBurney, D.H., & White, T.L. (2004). Research methods. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Merriam, S.B. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies. Workshop, 9-19 June 2008, North-West
University (Potchefstroom). Unpublished workshop notes. Mertens, D.M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press. Niewenhuis, J. (2007). Analysing qualitative data.
In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 99-122). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. Pare, M. (2004). Educating marginalised children: the challenge of the right to education in Brazil. International
Journal of Children’s Rights, 12, 17-257. Peters, S.J. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all. http://www.worldbank.org. Accessed 5 August 2008. Sauvé, S. (2003). Changing paradigms
for working with street youth: the experience of Street Kids International. Children, Youth and Environments, 13. Schimmel, N. (2006). Freedom and autonomy of street children. International
Journal of Children’s Rights, 14, 211-233. Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strydom, H. (2005). Ethical aspects of research in the social sciences and
human service professions. In A.S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C.B. Fouche., & C.S.L. Delport (Eds), Research at grass roots for the social sciences and human service professions (pp.56-85). Pretoria: Van
Schaik Publishers. Terre Blanche, M., Kelly, K., & Durrheim, K. (2006). Why qualitative research? In M. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim., & D. Painter (Eds), Research in practice. Cape Town: University of
Cape Town Press. Tolfree, D.K. (2003). Community based care for separated children. Stockholm: Save the Children Sweden. Ungar, M. (2004). Nurturing hidden resilience in troubled youth.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ungar, M. (2006). Nurturing hidden resilience in at-risk youth in different cultures. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 53-58. Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience
across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 218-235. Van Rooyen, L., & Hartell, C.G. (2002). Health of the street child: the relation between life-style, immunity and HIV/AIDS — A synergy of
research. South African Journal of Education, 22, 188-192. Vogel, H.M. (2001). Coping skills for street children. Pretoria: Unisa. Ward, C.L., Martin, E., Theron, C., & Distiller, G.B. (2007). Factors
affecting resilience in children exposed to violence. South African Journal of Psychology, 37, 165-187.
Copyright of South African Journal of Psychology is the property of South African Journal of Psychology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Each week you will be reading scholarly articles, chapters, and popular press pieces drawn from multiple disciplines (e.g., Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Biology, etc.). In many cases you
will be asked to read original pieces of research that have shaped the field of human development research. Sometimes the assigned readings will read like stories drawn from someone’s travels
or observations. Other times the readings will be very technical, including sophisticated statistical analyses. The goal, regardless of the type of reading (or the difficulty level), is to extract the
main points and to be able to relate the content back to course concepts presented in the lesson plans. PURPOSE: The purpose of this assignment is to have you practice extracting pertinent
information from course readings, identifying the key components. It is the hope that you will then be able to apply the same process to the other course readings throughout the semester.
INSTRUCTIONS: Read the article titled Malindi, M.J., & Theron, L.C. (2010). The hidden resilience of street youth, South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 318-326. As you read the article make
note of the following information. You will need to type up your answers single-spaced, 12-point font: ? ? Where is the article published? Is it a scholarly article published in a disciplinary journal?
Or, is it a chapter from a book or an article from a popular press magazine? When was the article published? When was the study conducted? Studies often take a long time to get published thus
a study that is conducted in 1995, for example, might not get published until 2000. It is important to know when data were collected and when they were published so that you can evaluate
whether or not the results are still relevant. Who is studied in the article? Which group of people was included in the study? Were participants children or adults? Where do participants live
(country or geographical region)? This information is usually included in the Methods Sections. What research questions were examined? What was the purpose of the study? What questions did
the authors seek to answer? What research methods did the authors use to answer their questions? How did the authors answer their research questions? In other words, how did they collect
the data for their study? Did the authors do surveys, interviews, observations, etc.? This information is usually included in a Methods Section. What were the results of the study? What did the
authors find? What were the answers to the authors’ research questions? This information is usually included in the Results Section although it is also typically summarized at the beginning of
the Discussion Section. When the article includes very complicated analyses, you might find it easier to identify the results by reviewing the Discussion Section.
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study? From your point of view, what were the strengths and weaknesses of the study presented in the article? Sometimes the authors pinpoint
these strengths and weaknesses in their Discussion Section. Which course concepts from the lesson plans are addressed in the article?
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂
