RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR FAMILY RESILIENCE: RESILIENCE PROCESSES ADOPTED BY FAMILIES LIVING IN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED ENVIRONMENTS

Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 212 212 Volume 11, 2025, 212-225 h/ps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17849962 RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR FAMILY RESILIENCE: RESILIENCE PROCESSES ADOPTED BY FAMILIES LIVING IN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED ENVIRONMENTS Mampane Motlalepule Ruth, Sepadi Medwin Dikwanyane Department of EducaLonal Psychology, University of Pretoria, South Africa Abstract This study explores the resilience processes of low-income families in Mamelodi, South Africa, a context of profound economic adversity. Through qualitative Participatory Reflection and Action (PRA) workshops with 96 caregivers, the research identifies that family resilience is a dynamic achievement, negotiated through the interaction of variable relational processes and stable foundational strengths. Key findings reveal that positive communication, collaborative problem-solving, and supportive relationships are critical yet vulnerable protective factors that can easily become risks under pressure; conversely, religion/spirituality and shared family beliefs serve as a stable, cultural anchor providing meaning and hope. The pervasive risk of low socio-economic status consistently threatens this balance, exerting a destabilizing force on family functioning. The study concludes that resilience is an active process where families leverage their foundational beliefs to protect their relational bonds, challenging deficit narratives and highlighting the need for interventions that combine economic support with culturally congruent strengthening of family processes. Keywords: Resilience, Risk, Protection, Poverty, Communication, Spirituality, Ubuntu, Community, Adaptation, Process 1. Introduc+on Families residing in economically depressed environments are frequently characterised by a confluence of significant challenges. Research consistently demonstrates that low-income households are overrepresented in staLsLcs about inadequate resources, substandard shelter, food insecurity, unemployment, limited access to healthcare, and exposure to crime (Wall et al., 2020). These mulLfarious risk factors are intrinsically linked to economic precarity, which criLcally impairs family funcLoning as caregivers struggle to meet basic needs (Trisi et al., 2011; South African Reserve Bank [SARB], 2021). While all families navigate problems, those of low socio-economic status (SES) are disproporLonately burdened by poverty and o`en experience social and community isolaLon (Yang et al., 2021). The Covid-19 pandemic has starkly exacerbated these pre-exisLng global inequaliLes. In South Africa, lockdown measures precipitated widespread job losses, pushing the naLonal poverty rate to 55% and disproporLonately affecLng Black South Africans, whose unemployment rate soared to 63.2% (StaLsLcs South Africa [Stats SA], 2021; Kartseva & Kuznetsova, 2020). This has intensified economic hardship and widened the chasm of resource disparity between highand low-income families. CommuniLes like Mamelodi township exemplify these challenges. Characterized by high populaLon density and widespread impoverishment, residents face profound barriers in accessing social services, employment, and training opportuniLes (Mudau & Mhangara, 2021; Ruane, 2010). The accumulaLon of these stressors can lead to increased psychological distress and diminished well-being among family members (Xiao et al., 2020). In contrast, higher-SES families o`en benefit from a robust infrastructure of support, including be/er policing, mental health care, and educaLonal resources, which facilitate greater resilience and opportunity (Payne, 2018; Lindsey, 2008). Despite these entrenched and o`en traumaLsing inequaliLes, a significant number of economically disadvantaged families demonstrate remarkable resilience. Contrary to deficit-based narraLves, many such families successfully keep their children in school, maintain stable households, and engage their children in developmentally appropriate acLviLes (Walsh, 2016; Dickinson & Adams, 2014). This evidence underscores the necessity of moving beyond a sole focus on risks and pathologies to understanding the sources of strength, adaptability, and resilience that enable posiLve adaptaLon. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 213 213 Resilience is defined as a developmental process leading to successful adaptaLon despite challenging or threatening circumstances (Masten, 2015; Masten & Mok-Stefanidi, 2020). While historically focused on individuals, the concept has rightly been expanded to the family system (Walsh, 2021; Yang et al., 2021). Family resilience refers to the capacity of a family to withstand and rebound from adversity through transacLonal processes that foster mutual support, collaboraLve problem-solving, and a shared belief system (Walsh, 2016). It is evident that when a family not only endures significant risk but also emerges more cohesive, resourceful, and strengthened (Black & Lobo, 2008). Families that confront difficulLes collecLvely are more likely to achieve posiLve outcomes, with warmth, connectedness, and togetherness being strong predictors of children's academic success and prospects (Orthner et al., 2014; Trisi et al., 2011). Social support from community insLtuLons and networks is another criLcal protecLve factor, buffering the impact of common stressors (Ungar, 2011; Masarik & Conger, 2017). Furthermore, family spirituality, religiosity, and deeply held cultural belief systems provide a framework for making meaning of adversity, fostering a sense of purpose, and promoLng cohesion (Bhana & Bachoo, 2011; Greeff & Du Toit, 2009; Walsh, 2012). However, while research on general risk and protecLve factors for family resilience is established, the specific resilience processes employed by families in sustained economically depressed environments remain underexplored (Buheji, 2020). Given the South African Reserve Bank's (2021) projecLon of a prolonged economic recovery, understanding these processes is more criLcal than ever. This study, therefore, aims to explore the lived experiences of low-income families in Mamelodi, South Africa, to invesLgate the specific risk and protecLve factors that characterise their resilience processes. The research is guided by the quesLon: What are the resilience processes that help South African families from a low socio-economic background overcome adversi;es? 2. Literature Review 2.1 Global Perspec+ves on Family Resilience The concept of resilience has evolved from a focus on individual traits to a dynamic, process-oriented understanding situated within ecological systems (Masten, 2015; Ungar, 2011). Family resilience, consequently, is not viewed as a staLc a/ribute but as the capacity of a family system to navigate and adapt to adversity through interacLve processes (Walsh, 2016, 2021). This global perspecLve emphasises that resilience is forged within the crucible of shared challenges, where families mobilise resources to foster posiLve adaptaLon and even posttraumaLc growth. A robust body of internaLonal literature idenLfies common protecLve factors that underpin family resilience. Walsh's (2016) seminal framework organizes these into three key domains: (1) Family Belief Systems (making meaning of adversity, maintaining a posiLve outlook, and transcendence/spirituality); (2) OrganizaLonal Pa/erns (flexibility, connectedness, and social and economic resources); and (3) CommunicaLon Processes (clarity, open emoLonal expression, and collaboraLve problem-solving). These factors are consistently idenLfied across diverse contexts as buffers against risks such as economic hardship, illness, and disaster (Prime et al., 2020; Masten & Monn, 2015). For instance, collaboraLve problem-solving and clear communicaLon allow families to appraise threats realisLcally and mobilise collecLve acLon, while strong social networks provide tangible and emoLonal support that miLgates the impact of stressors (Ungar, 2011; Theiss, 2018). 2.2 The African Context: Ubuntu and Communal Resilience The applicaLon of Western-centric models of resilience to African contexts o`en overlooks fundamental cultural and philosophical differences. The African worldview is o`en characterised by a collecLvist ethos, most famously encapsulated in the Southern African concept of Ubuntu – "I am because we are" (Mugumbate & Chereni, 2020; Semenya & Mokoena, 2012). This philosophy places the community, rather than the individual or even the nuclear family, at the centre of human existence and, by extension, resilience. Within this framework, family is frequently extended beyond biological Les to include a broad kinship network and community (Mji, 2019). Resilience processes are therefore deeply embedded in communal pracLces and interdependencies. The role of ancestors, elders, and community rituals in providing guidance, support, and a sense of cultural conLnuity is a criLcal protecLve factor o`en absent from Western models (Gunnestad & Thwala, 2011; Kirmayer et al., 2011). Spirituality and religiosity are not merely private beliefs but are woven into the fabric of daily life and are a primary mechanism for making meaning of suffering and fostering hope (Bhana & Bachoo, 2011; Schwalm et al., 2021). As such, the unit of analysis for "family resilience" in many African sekngs must be expanded to include the wider community and spiritual ecosystem that acLvely parLcipates in the family's adapLve processes. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 214 214 2.4 The South African Nexus: Poverty, Inequality, and Resilience South Africa presents a unique and criLcal case study for examining family resilience. The enduring legacy of apartheid, characterised by systemaLc racial discriminaLon, spaLal segregaLon, and economic disenfranchisement, has created a society with one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world (Stats SA, 2021). For most Black South African families, economic deprivaLon is not a temporary setback but a persistent, intergeneraLonal reality (Amoateng & Richter, 2007). The literature on South African families living in poverty extensively documents the overwhelming risk factors such as chronic unemployment, food insecurity, inadequate housing, high rates of crime and violence, and a burden of disease exacerbated by HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 (Landsberg et al., 2011; SARB, 2021). These compounds to create what has been termed "toxic stress," which can disrupt family funcLoning and parenLng pracLces, leading to negaLve outcomes for children (Masarik & Conger, 2017). However, a growing strand of research focuses on the protecLve factors that enable survival and thriving against these odds. Studies have found that South African families demonstrate remarkable resilience through: Extended Family and Social Networks: The reliance on grandparents, aunts, uncles, and even non-kin community members for childcare, financial support, and emoLonal sustenance is a fundamental adapLve strategy (Mahlase & Ntombela, 2011; Tchombe et al., 2012). Spirituality and Church CommuniLes: As in broader Africa, religious faith and acLve parLcipaLon in church communiLes provide not only existenLal comfort but also very pracLcal social support, networking opportuniLes, and material aid (Greeff & Du Toit, 2009; Ruane, 2010). Informal Support Structures: Community-based iniLaLves like the drop-in centre in this study, stokvels (savings clubs), and burial socieLes act as crucial buffers, filling gaps le` by inadequate state support (Hall & Cheston, 2002; Spring et al., 2019). While the general risk and protecLve factors are increasingly documented, there is a paucity of research that delves into the everyday processes through which these factors are acLvated and negoLated by families in sustained economically depressed environments (Buheji, 2020; Maurović et al., 2020). Much of the South African literature remains focused on either cataloguing adversiLes or lisLng staLc resources. The dynamic, transacLonal nature of resilience how beliefs translate into communicaLon, how spirituality influences problem-solving, and how economic pressure strains relaLonal bonds is less understood. This study addresses this gap by employing a parLcipatory methodology to explore the lived experiences of families in Mamelodi. It seeks to understand resilience not as a list of assets but as a process enacted through the "proximal processes" of daily family life. By focusing on a specific, high-risk South African township context, this research aims to contribute a nuanced, contextually grounded understanding of family resilience that honours both the universal principles outlined in global frameworks and the unique manifestaLons of those principles within the African philosophy of Ubuntu and the harsh socio-economic reality of post-apartheid South Africa. 2.5 Theore+cal Framework This study is guided by an integrated theoreLcal framework that combines Family Resilience Theory (Walsh, 2016) and Bioecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The combinaLon of these two perspecLves provides a comprehensive lens for analysing the findings, as it accounts for both the internal transacLonal processes within the family unit and the profound influence of the broader external environment. This dual focus is essenLal for understanding resilience in a context defined by pervasive economic and social adversity. 2.5.1 Family Resilience Theory: A Strength-Based Lens The primary lens for this research is Walsh's (2016) Family Resilience Theory. This framework represents a paradigm shi` from a pathological, deficit-based view of families in crisis towards a strength-based perspecLve that focuses on adapLve processes and the potenLal for posiLve growth. Walsh (2016, p. 16) conceptualises family resilience as "the capacity of the family system to withstand and rebound from adversity," emerging not merely intact but strengthened and more resourceful. The theory organizes the key processes that foster this capacity into three interrelated domains (Walsh, 2016). The first domain is Family Belief Systems, which encompasses the shared meanings a family constructs to make sense of adversity. This includes making meaning of hardship, maintaining a posiLve outlook, and transcendence and spirituality, such as relying on faith or cultural values to see beyond the immediate crisis (Bhana & Bachoo, 2011; Walsh, 2012). The second domain is OrganisaLonal Pa/erns, which refers to the structure and resources of Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 215 215 the family system. This includes flexibility, or the ability to adapt to roles and rules; connectedness, meaning mutual support and commitment; and social and economic resources, which involve mobilising both internal and external supports (Ungar, 2011). The third domain is CommunicaLon Processes, which entails how the family interacts to process informaLon and emoLon. This includes clarity, or open and honest communicaLon; open emoLonal expression; and collaboraLve problem-solving (Theiss, 2018; Walsh, 2016). This framework is directly applicable to the present study as it provides a structured vocabulary to categorise and analyse the protecLve and risk factors idenLfied by the parLcipants, moving beyond a simple lisLng of variables to an understanding of their dynamic funcLoning within the family unit. 2.5.2 Bioecological Systems Theory: Contextualising the Family While Walsh's theory provides an essenLal focus on the internal family system, Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Systems Theory is indispensable for contextualising the family within its broader environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). This theory posits that human development is shaped by a complex system of relaLonships affected by mulLple levels of the surrounding environment. For the families in Mamelodi, the adversiLes they face are not isolated incidents but are deeply embedded within larger socio-economic and historical systems (Landsberg et al., 2011; Stats SA, 2021). The theory outlines several levels of the ecosystem that are criLcally relevant to this study. The microsystem includes the immediate environments with which the family interacts directly, such as the household, the extended family, the school, the local church, and the drop-in centre (Mahlase & Ntombela, 2011). The mesosystem involves the interconnecLons between these microsystems, for example, the relaLonship between the drop-in centre and the parents (Ungar, Theron & Murphy, 2023). The exosystem comprises external environments that indirectly influence the family, such as parental workplace policies, local government services, and social welfare systems (Prime et al, 2021). Family. The macrosystem is the overarching cultural, economic, and poliLcal context, including the naLonal history of apartheid, prevailing economic inequality, cultural values of Ubuntu, and naLonal social policies (Amoateng & Richter, 2007; Mugumbate & Chereni, 2020). Finally, the chronosystem adds the dimension of Lme, encompassing socio-historical condiLons and life transiLons, such as the enduring impact of apartheid and the recent economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic (SARB, 2021; van Breda et al, 2025). This ecological lens is crucial for understanding why low socio-economic status was idenLfied by parLcipants as such a potent and stable risk factor, as it illustrates how macroeconomic forces and inadequate social safety nets create chronic stressors that penetrate the core of family life (Masarik & Conger, 2017). 2.5.3 An Integrated Theore+cal Lens for Understanding Resilience The integraLon of these two theories creates a mulL-layered analyLcal framework for this study. Walsh's (2016) theory provides the internal vocabulary to describe the family's own adapLve processes, effecLvely answering what and how of their resilience. Concurrently, Bronfenbrenner's theory provides the external map to locate the family and understand the origin and persistence of the adversiLes they face, answering the why and where of their challenges (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). This integrated approach acknowledges that a family’s capacity for resilience is not developed in isolaLon but is forged through a conLnuous transacLon between its internal processes, its beliefs, organisaLon, and communicaLon and the mulLple, o`en oppressive, layers of its external ecosystem (Bosire et al, 2022). This framework directly supports the central finding of this study that factors like relaLonships, communicaLon, and problem-solving exist on a conLnuum their posiLve or negaLve expression is heavily mediated by the immense pressure exerted by the broader economic and social context (Christodoulou et al, 2022). Conversely, it also explains how stable internal factors, such as spirituality and deeply held family beliefs, can provide a criLcal buffer against these external pressures (Gunnestad & Thwala, 2011; Ungar, 2015). In essence, this theoreLcal framework posits that family resilience in an economically depressed environment is best understood as the product of a family’s acLve efforts to nurture key internal processes while simultaneously navigaLng the significant constraints and leveraging the limited resources offered by their specific ecological context. 3. Method This secLon outlines the research design, paradigm, parLcipants, data collecLon instruments, procedures, ethical consideraLons, and data analysis strategies employed to invesLgate the resilience processes of families in Mamelodi. 3.1 Research Approach and Paradigma+c Perspec+ve Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 216 216 This study adopted a qualitaLve research approach situated within an interpreLvist paradigm. InterpreLvism posits that reality is socially constructed and subjecLve, and that knowledge is gained through understanding the meanings people assign to their experiences (Chan et al., 2016). This paradigm is appropriate as the study sought to understand the lived experiences and subjecLve interpretaLons of caregivers regarding their family's resilience. Within this paradigm, a phenomenological research design was employed. Phenomenology is concerned with the detailed study of human experience, and the meanings individuals derive from their lived world (Langdridge, 2007; Qutoshi, 2018). The aim was to explore and describe the essence of the phenomenon of "family resilience" as experienced by the parLcipants in their specific context, without any prior assumpLons or disturbances to their natural sekng. 3.2 Research Method and Par+cipatory Reflec+on and Ac+on (PRA) Workshops To gather rich, interacLve, and reflecLve data, the study uLlised ParLcipatory ReflecLon and AcLon (PRA) workshops. PRA is a community-based parLcipatory method that facilitates collaboraLve learning and analysis between the researcher and parLcipants (Chambers, 2012; Halskov & Hansen, 2015). This method was selected for its suitability in resource-limited communiLes, as it values local knowledge, promotes empowerment, and allows parLcipants to arLculate their experiences in their own words rather than being constrained by predetermined numerical scales (Jernigan & Jacob, 2015). Four separate PRA workshops were conducted with caregivers whose children a/ended an a`er-school dropin centre in Mamelodi. The purpose of these workshops was to explore the challenges of living in an economically depressed environment and to idenLfy the specific resilience enablers families rely on to thrive. 3.3 Research Par+cipants and Sampling A purposive sampling technique was used to select 96 parLcipants. All parLcipants were adult parents or primary caregivers of children who received support at the drop-in centre. Purposive sampling was appropriate as it allowed for the selecLon of informaLon-rich cases relevant to the phenomenon under study, individuals who had direct experience with the challenges and adapLve strategies of raising a family in an economically depressed context. As captured in the a/endance registers, the parLcipants' ages ranged from 31 to 90 years old. The majority of parLcipants were female (n=84), with only three male parLcipants and nine parLcipants who did not indicate their gender. To ensure confidenLality and ethical reporLng, each parLcipant is referred to in the findings using a pseudonym (e.g., P1-W1, P2-W3). The code denotes the parLcipant number and the workshop they a/ended (e.g., P12-W4 is the twel`h parLcipant from Workshop 4). Table 1: Sample Size of the PRA Workshops Research method Sample size Descrip+on of sample PRA Workshop 1 18 Caregivers/Parents PRA Workshop 2 20 Caregivers/Parents PRA Workshop 3 28 Caregivers/Parents PRA Workshop 4 30 Caregivers/Parents Total sample 96 3.4 Data Collec+on Instruments and Procedure The primary data collecLon instruments were the PRA workshop acLviLes and an a/endance register. The register was used to capture basic demographic informaLon (age, gender) at each workshop. The PRA workshop acLviLes were designed based on the research quesLons and a review of the literature on family resilience (Burton et al., 2008). AcLviLes were structured to encourage deep reflecLon and sharing. Examples included: 1. Resource Mapping: ParLcipants collaboraLvely drew maps of their community, idenLfying key sources of support and risk. 2. Problem Tree Analysis: ParLcipants idenLfied a core challenge (the trunk), its root causes (roots), and its effects (branches), followed by a discussion of soluLons (the fruit). 3. Strength Cards: ParLcipants discussed pre-prepared cards lisLng potenLal strengths (e.g., "prayer," "talking together," "support from family") and ranked their importance for their family's survival. Before commencing, ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Pretoria ethics commi/ee, and permission was granted by the drop-in centre management. A pre-workshop meeLng was held with prospecLve Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 217 217 parLcipants to explain the study's objecLves, benefits, and their rights as parLcipants. Informed consent was obtained in wriLng before the start of each workshop. With parLcipants' permission, all workshop sessions were audio-recorded to capture the discussions verbaLm. Extensive field notes were taken by the researcher and two trained assistants to document non-verbal cues, group dynamics, and contextual observaLons. A reflecLve research diary was maintained throughout the process to record the researcher's iniLal impressions and methodological reflecLons, adding to the audit trail and rigour of the study. 3.5 Data Analysis The qualitaLve data from the audio recordings and field notes were transcribed verbaLm and analysed using inducLve themaLc analysis following the six-phase approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019). 1. FamiliarisaLon with the Data: The researcher immersed herself in the data by reading and re-reading the transcripts while listening to the audio recordings. 2. GeneraLng IniLal Codes: Significant features of the data were systemaLcally coded across the enLre dataset. 3. Searching for Themes: The codes were collated into potenLal overarching themes that captured important pa/erns in the data. 4. Reviewing Themes: The potenLal themes were checked against the coded extracts and the enLre dataset to ensure they formed a coherent pa/ern. 5. Defining and Naming Themes: The essence of each theme was refined, and clear names and definiLons were generated for each. 6. Producing the Report: The analysis was woven into a narraLve report, supported by vivid, compelling extract examples. To enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the analysis, a process of cross-validaLon was employed. Three independent coders familiar with qualitaLve analysis were engaged. The first and second coders met a`er each workshop to compare and discuss their iniLal codes. Any discrepancies or disagreements in coding or themaLc idenLficaLon were referred to a third coder. This third coder, blinded to the choices of the first two, assessed the disputed data extracts and assigned a final category, thereby reducing researcher bias and increasing the validity of the idenLfied themes. 3.6 Ethical Considera+ons This research adhered to the highest ethical standards. Ethical approval was granted by the University's Ethics Commi/ee. Wri/en informed consent was obtained from all parLcipants a`er the study's purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits were explained. ParLcipants were informed of their right to withdraw at any Lme without penalty. Anonymity and confidenLality were guaranteed; all idenLfiers were removed from the transcripts, and pseudonyms (e.g., P1-W1) are used throughout this report. The data is stored securely on a password-protected computer, and audio recordings will be destroyed five years a`er the publicaLon of the research. 4. Findings ThemaLc analysis of the data revealed that family resilience is not a fixed state but a dynamic process, conLnually negoLated through the interacLon between protecLve factors and risk factors. The findings are presented in two main secLons: first, the key protecLve factors that facilitate resilience, and second, the primary risk factors that threaten it. A criLcal finding was that several factors are bidirecLonal; their posiLve expression protects the family, while their negaLve expression poses a significant risk. The data culminates in a conceptual model that illustrates this process. 4.1. Pathways to Protec+on: Key Facilitators of Family Resilience ParLcipants described five core processes that enable families to withstand adversity and funcLon effecLvely. 4.1.1. Rela+onal Scaffolding: Posi+ve Family Rela+onships Strong, supporLve relaLonships were the most frequently cited source of resilience. These relaLonships, characterized by love, respect, and forgiveness, provide essenLal emoLonal and pracLcal sustenance. Understanding each other and respect and love... Do not compare your husband with the neighbour's husband..." (ParLcipant 14, Workshop 1). "We must love each other at all ;mes, forgive each other if we have made mistakes... A family is strengthened by love." (ParLcipant 2, Workshop 3). Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 218 218 "A home is a place of safety where you find the love and comfort of your parents." (ParLcipant 6, Workshop 2). "In ;mes of trouble a suppor;ve family will not air their dirty linen for everyone to see, they protect each other..." (ParLcipant 11, Workshop 4). 4.1.2. The Clarity of Connec+on: Effec+ve Communica+on Open, honest, and respecyul communicaLon was idenLfied as the bedrock for resolving conflict, making joint decisions, and maintaining emoLonal connecLon. It involves clarity, emoLonal expression, and a commitment to truthfulness. "Good communica;on, understanding, thanking each other, forgiving each other are one of the things that create a decent home." (ParLcipant 7, Workshop 2). "Communica;on is key to any family, do not bear grudges, if there's a problem discuss it and end the discussion with forgiveness on both sides." (ParLcipant 12, Workshop 1). "We must not lie to our children, we must tell them the truth. Even if the truth hurts... No maQer how bad the situa;on, we must be able to tell it as it is." (ParLcipant 3, Workshop 4). 4.1.3. Collec+ve Efficacy: Collabora+ve Problem-Solving The ability to face challenges collecLvely, rather than individually, was a defining feature of resilient families. This process involves gathering, discussing, agreeing on a path forward, and offering mutual support in implementaLon. "We all sit around the table and discuss the problem and reach a conclusion. ARer discussions we forgive and forget... from thereon we revive our love and con;nue loving each other." (ParLcipant 5, Workshop 3). "When you have family problems, sit down and talk about them and find a way forward together." (ParLcipant 9, Workshop 1). "You cannot get into your bed to sleep before you solve your problems... You have so many problems building up in you and this can destroy a family." (ParLcipant 17, Workshop 4). 4.1.4. The Pillars of Meaning: Family Beliefs and Religion/Spirituality These two factors were consistently idenLfied as the most stable and foundaLonal protecLve factors, providing a framework for making meaning of suffering and fostering hope. Faith was a paramount buffer, providing solace, guidance, and a sense of community. "A family needs to pray together at all ;mes for God to guide the family and be present with the family at all ;mes." (ParLcipant 1, Workshop 3). "It is important to believe in the Lord and pray to make your family strong." (ParLcipant 8, Workshop 4). Shared cultural values and worldview helped families normalise crises and view them as manageable within a larger, meaningful context. 4.2. Threats to Resilience: Factors that Undermine Family Func+oning ParLcipants were equally arLculate about the factors that erode family cohesion, many of which represent the negaLve pole of the protecLve factors. 4.2.1. Rela+onal Erosion: Nega+ve Communica+on and Dysfunc+onal Rela+onships When communicaLon and relaLonships break down, they become significant sources of risk and conflict. "Not listening when the other one is talking." (ParLcipant 15, Workshop 1); "Swearing at each other at all ;mes also breaks a family." (ParLcipant 4, Workshop 2). "Looking down on each other and less respect. Having extra marital affairs." (ParLcipant 5, Workshop 1); "Gossip, listening to other people discussing your partner and lack of trust can break a family." (ParLcipant 9, Workshop 4). "Some parents were brought up in abusive families, when they start having children of their own, they transfer their anger to their own children..." (ParLcipant 12, Workshop 3). 4.2.2. The Central Role of Socio-Economic Status Unlike the relaLonal factors, low socio-economic status, parLcularly unemployment and poverty, was idenLfied as a stable, pervasive, and underlying risk factor that exacerbates all other vulnerabiliLes. "If both parents are unemployed, the family will have challenges... the parents' weaknesses are no longer visible." (ParLcipant 2, Workshop 4); "Some women, if their husbands are no longer working, they treat their husbands badly..." (ParLcipant 10, Workshop 1). Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 219 219 "Poverty is bad... we are all lucky because we get groceries from social workers... unlike the street kids who sleep in the streets with no food, no shelter." (ParLcipant 19, Workshop 3). 4.3. Synthesis: The Dual Nature of Resilience Processes A central finding of this study is the dual nature of core resilience processes. The data suggests a clear hierarchy and relaLonship between factors: Stable FoundaLonal Factors: Religion/Spirituality and Family Beliefs were perceived as stable, independent protecLve factors, providing a consistent foundaLon. Variable RelaLonal Processes: CommunicaLon, CollaboraLve Problem-Solving, and RelaLonships were idenLfied as variables; their posiLve expression protected the family, while their negaLve expression posed a severe risk. The Contextual Overlay: The Low Socio-Economic environment acts as a constant, pervasive stressor that exerts pressure on the family system, making it more difficult to maintain the variable relaLonal processes in their posiLve state. Resilience, therefore, is an acLve, transacLonal process where families must consciously commit to maintaining posiLve communicaLon, collaboraLon, and relaLonships to buffer the constant pressure of economic adversity and fully leverage their foundaLonal strengths in faith and shared beliefs. Table 1: Summary of Risk and Protec+ve Factors for Family Resilience Factor Protec+ve Manifesta+on Risk Manifesta+on Nature Communica+on Open, honest, respecyul Poor, destrucLve, lacking Variable Problem-Solving CollaboraLve, proacLve Avoidant, individualisLc Variable Rela+onships SupporLve, loving, trusLng DysfuncLonal, disrespecyul Variable Religion/Spirituality Strong faith, prayer, church community (Largely absent as a risk) Stable Protec+on Family Beliefs Shared meaning, posiLve outlook (Largely absent as a risk) Stable Protec+on Socio-Economic Status (Not applicable) Unemployment, poverty Stable Risk 5. Discussion This study sought to explore the resilience processes adopted by families living in the economically depressed environment of Mamelodi. The findings reveal that family resilience is not a mere inventory of assets but a dynamic, transacLonal process, conLnually negoLated between internal family processes and external socioeconomic pressures. This discussion interprets these findings through the integrated lens of Walsh's (2016) Family Resilience Framework and Bronfenbrenner's (2005) Bioecological Systems Theory, situaLng them within both the global and specific South African context. 5.1. The Rela+onal Core of Resilience: A Variable Equilibrium The idenLficaLon of communicaLon, collaboraLve problem-solving, and relaLonships as bidirecLonal factors is a crucial finding. This aligns perfectly with Walsh's (2016) domains of organisaLonal pa/erns and communicaLon processes, which are posited as fundamental to adapLve family funcLoning. However, this study adds a criLcal nuance: these are not stable traits but are in a variable equilibrium, highly suscepLble to contextual stress (Durr & Greeff, 2020). ParLcipants' narraLves confirmed that posiLve communicaLon characterized by clarity, emoLonal honesty, and respect (Theiss, 2018; Walsh, 2012) is a facilitaLng dimension for resilience. Conversely, its absence or negaLve expression became a primary source of risk. This duality underscores that these processes are the ac;ve work of resilience; they require conLnuous effort and commitment from all family members. Their success is "relaLonal," dependent on the aktudes and interacLons between individuals, making them vulnerable to breakdown under strain, a finding that echoes the family stress model proposed by Masarik and Conger (2017). Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 220 220 5.2. The Founda+onal Bedrock: Stable Protec+ve Factors in a Hos+le Macrosystem In contrast to the variable relaLonal processes, religion/spirituality and family beliefs emerged as stable, foundaLonal protecLve factors. ParLcipants viewed them as "independent of the intensity of adversity." This finding strongly supports Walsh's (2012) belief system domain, where making meaning, maintaining a posiLve outlook, and transcendence are key. The profound role of religiosity, specifically through church communiLes, extends beyond individual comfort (Monakedi, 2020). It provides a vital mesosystemic link (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), connecLng the family (microsystem) to a wider support network that offers both tangible and emoLonal resources (Gunnestad & Thwala, 2011; Schwalm et al., 2021). This aligns with the African philosophical concept of Ubuntu, where idenLty and support are derived from the collecLve (Mugumbate & Chereni, 2020). Similarly, shared family beliefs, o`en rooted in cultural values, help normalise suffering and provide a coherent narraLve to navigate hardship, which is a known buffer against trauma (Bhana & Bachoo, 2011). These stable factors appear to funcLon as an anchor, providing a sense of purpose and hope that persists even when relaLonal processes are strained by external pressures. 5.3. The Pervasive Threat: Low Socio-Economic Status as a Macrosystemic Risk The consistent idenLficaLon of low socio-economic status (SES) as a stable risk factor underscores the powerful influence of the macrosystem and exosystem on family life (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). This finding is welldocumented in the literature; poverty creates chronic, toxic stress that depletes psychological resources and strains interpersonal relaLonships (Conger et al., 2010; Payne, 2018). This study provides a vivid, on-the-ground confirmaLon of this dynamic. ParLcipants explicitly described how unemployment and poverty lead to shame, conflict ("they treat their husbands badly"), and a reliance on external aid. This aligns with naLonal staLsLcs showing deep structural inequality and high unemployment disproporLonately affecLng Black South African communiLes (Stats SA, 2021). The data illustrate how this macrosystemic reality directly infiltrates the microsystem of the family, potenLally triggering negaLve communicaLon, eroding relaLonships, and hindering collaboraLve problem-solving. It is the constant, overwhelming background against which the drama of family resilience plays out. 5.4. An Integrated Model of Resilience in Context Therefore, the findings can be synthesized into an integrated model of family resilience for communiLes like Mamelodi: The Macrosystemic Pressure: The low-SES context exerts a constant, destabilizing pressure on the family system. The RelaLonal MediaLon: This pressure directly impacts the variable relaLonal processes (communicaLon, problem-solving, relaLonships), challenging the family's ability to maintain them in a posiLve state. The FoundaLonal Buffer: The stable, foundaLonal factors of spirituality and family beliefs provide a criLcal buffer, offering meaning, hope, and external support that helps the family withstand pressure. The AcLve Process of Resilience: Resilience is the outcome of the family's acLve, ongoing effort to protect and nurture its posiLve relaLonal processes despite the macroeconomic pressure, an effort that is sustained by its foundaLonal beliefs. This model resonates with Ungar's (2011) social ecological view of resilience, which emphasises that resilience is not just the capacity of the individual or family, but the capacity of their environment to provide the necessary resources and supports. In Mamelodi, the church and family belief systems are key providers of that resource. 5.5. Limita+ons and Implica+ons for Future Research This study's limitaLons include a sample predominantly comprised of female caregivers, which may skew perspecLves on family dynamics. Furthermore, the focus on one township limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should acLvely include male caregivers to gain a more holisLc understanding of family resilience processes. Longitudinal studies could track how these processes change over Lme and in response to specific economic shocks. Finally, research could explore the efficacy of intervenLons designed to strengthen the specific variable processes (e.g., communicaLon skills workshops) within these high-risk, high-potenLal communiLes. In conclusion, this research demonstrates that for families in economically depressed environments, resilience is a hard-won achievement. It is the product of a daily struggle to maintain loving communicaLon, collaboraLve problem-solving, and strong relaLonships against a Lde of economic adversity a struggle made possible by the unwavering anchor of faith and shared cultural beliefs.