Throughout all the regions in the developing world, women have limited or no access to land. Shumba (2011) was of the view that the rural population in Zimbabwe constituted about 86 per cent of the population and statistics showed that women produce 80 per cent of the food but owned less than 10 per cent of the land. Meena (1992) argued that although most African states acknowledged the significant role played by women in the agricultural sector, few paid much attention to the land tenure systems which have been discriminating against women. While this view was true, a lot has happened and many African governments acknowledge the massive role played by women in agriculture. However, Odeny (2013) attested that 75 per cent of the land in Africa was under customary tenure, administered by unwritten laws based on traditions and cultural norms prevailing in an area for a particular tribe of people.
Theories of land reform and women empowerment have been discussed. The prevailing views show that although progressive constitutions that protect human rights to property and equal ownership of land, including inheritance and Land Bills that protect women have been adopted in many countries in the developing regions, women have access to land but ownership to land remains low, if not impossible. Patriarchy systems that emphasise laws of gendered access to land, inheritance and views, marriage practices and family as the universal domestic unit have worsened women’s position in society (Odeny 2013, Gaidzanwa 2011, Shumba 2011, Tinyade 2009, Makura-Paradza 2010). Unmarried adult women are viewed as impermanent or transient as they are destined to marry and move to another community, but marriage has for some time ceased to be the universal basis of the domestic unit in rural Zimbabwe (Kesby 1999 and Adams 1991a cited in Makura-Paradza 2010). These changes in the domestic unit required a nuanced approach in understating the impact on women’s livelihoods during the FTLRP in Zimbabwe, as the land was distributed in a much traditionally relaxed political space. This bring us to the gap in research of how land was distributed in traditionally relaxed political space: different from either previous land reforms from 1980 or the traditional customary land tenure distribution and land holding thereby opening avenues for women to own land in their own right or jointly. Land was resurfacing as a very contentious issue in the face of increasing global interests in land, food, water, and fuel security (African Women’s Land Rights Conference 2011). The FTLRP was testament to this pertinent need for land as a primary resource for the poor, and especially women. Moreover, inspite of increasing attention on women, we still
44
lack sufficient knowledge on women, especially their land rights. Available studies on women tend towards ‘traditional’ women’s issues, skirting the politically sensitive matter of land rights (STAR Kampuchea, 2013). Central to this research is how are women affected by land policies and programmes stemming from the FTLRP? How many of them have land titles, individually or jointly? Do they have access to land dispute resolution? How do female-headed households differ from male headed ones? These are just a few unanswered questions (Issue Brief 2016).
On-going debates argue that women’s land rights are the tool to promote and realise human rights, increase economic efficiency, and productivity, empower women and promote theirs and their households’ welfare and well-being, their bargaining power positions within the households and community, etc. (Agarwal 1994; Deere 1990; Boyce et. al., 2005; Allendorf 2007; Rosenkrantz 2014). However, Allendorf (2007) pointed out that despite the increasing prevalence of these claims, little research has empirically evaluated their validity. Hence this research attempts to address this gap in part by examining the connection between land reforms and women’s livelihoods in the Sub-division A of Clonmore Farm in Mberengwa District - Zimbabwe.
Data on women is scarce because of gender-bias which lack disaggregated data reporting. On the dearth of knowledge on sex differentials in the distribution of land between men and women, Nyaja (2016) argued that land distribution programmes were expected to deliver household income, food security, empowerment and promote agricultural growth but very little was known about how they affect or are affected by differential access to and control over land between men and women.
Mkodzongi (2013), found that emerging evidence from fieldwork studies undertaken across the country indicated that the outcomes of the FTLRP were far more complex: beneficiaries of FTLRP were not a homogeneous group; although elites with political connections got multiple farms especially bigger farms under the A2 Model; the biggest beneficiaries was made up of predominantly rural people with farming background. Studies further show that new farmers have organised themselves and new social institutions (Scoones et. al., 2010) have emerged in these areas; new identities were being negotiated which led to social cohesion and new forms of belonging have been established. Moreover, peasant households could now socially reproduce themselves in diverse ways (through cropping and livestock, extraction of natural resources, etc.) and livelihood strategies were diversified, new opportunities opened up, access to bigger and better soil quality also broken down the barriers which prevented peasant households from accessing natural resources like minerals, wildlife and non-timber forest products which were previously bonded in private land holdings of mainly white landed elites (Moyo et. al., 2009). Hence, these new outcomes which changed the way in which peasant households were socially reproducing themselves warranted further empirical research in order to fully comprehend their impact on peasant households strategies in light of other research that has been conducted (Moyo et. al., 2009; Scoones et. al., 2009; Mandizvidza 2009; Mkodzongi 2013).
45
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.1INTRODUCTION
This chapter is dedicated to a discussion on research methodology that guided the research philosophy, the research strategy and choice of research instruments utilised in pursuit of the research aims and its objectives. Labaree (2009), argued that the methods section describes the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, and analyse information applied to understanding the research problem, thereby allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. He further pointed out that methodology answers the questions as to how the data was collected and how it was analysed. Leedy and Ormrod (2005), agree as they pointed out that research methodology is the general approach the researcher takes in carrying out the research project; to some extent, this approach dictates the particular tools the researcher selects.
This chapter consists of three (3) sections including this first section. Section 3.2 discusses the research philosophical positionality or approach. Section 3.3 deals with research design (description of the study area, target population and sampling procedures and data collection tools, data analysis and methodological reflections).