<%BANNER%>

Perceived Group Cohesiveness among Participants in Redistributed Farms of Capricorn District, Limpopo Province

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021601/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceived Group Cohesiveness among Participants in Redistributed Farms of Capricorn District, Limpopo Province
Physical Description: 1 online resource (196 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Manganyi, Tirhani Prud
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: action, cohesiveness, collective, common, group, land, property, redistribution
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was implemented as part of the land reform initiative of South Africa. Through the SLAG, self-organized groups became co-owners of farmland. The purpose of this study was to explore perceived group cohesiveness among participants in redistributed SLAG farms of Capricorn District, Limpopo Province. Factors affecting group cohesiveness were also explored. A cross-sectional research design was employed and data were collected at the farm level (n=13) and at the individual level (n=137). At the farm level, nominal data were collected on the structural characteristics of farms and the processes that led to the evolution of current farm groups. Perceived degree of support services provided was measured as an interval variable. At the individual level (n=137), perceptions were measured on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, and the degree of group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness was measured with a Likert-type scale adapted from Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985), and other scale response type measures were developed based on operational definitions. Thematic content analysis was performed in analyzing nominal data collected through group discussions. Frequencies and measures of central tendency were used to summarize data. T-tests for the equality of means and equality of variance were performed in analyzing interval data. Causal relationships between perceived group cohesiveness and explanatory variables were identified through stepwise linear regression. Findings from the study revealed prevalence of high turnover rates (approximately 85%) among beneficiaries in study farms. Various patterns of participation had evolved and as a result, both individual as well as group activities were performed. Differences between farms with low and high degree of satisfaction with benefits acquired from the farms, the degree of group governance, and degree of perceived cohesiveness were significant. Linear regression analysis revealed that group governance and satisfaction with benefits were significant predictors of group cohesiveness. These explanatory variables accounted for 20% of the variance.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Tirhani Prud Manganyi.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Place, Nick T.
Local: Co-adviser: Russo, Sandra L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021601:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021601/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceived Group Cohesiveness among Participants in Redistributed Farms of Capricorn District, Limpopo Province
Physical Description: 1 online resource (196 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Manganyi, Tirhani Prud
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: action, cohesiveness, collective, common, group, land, property, redistribution
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was implemented as part of the land reform initiative of South Africa. Through the SLAG, self-organized groups became co-owners of farmland. The purpose of this study was to explore perceived group cohesiveness among participants in redistributed SLAG farms of Capricorn District, Limpopo Province. Factors affecting group cohesiveness were also explored. A cross-sectional research design was employed and data were collected at the farm level (n=13) and at the individual level (n=137). At the farm level, nominal data were collected on the structural characteristics of farms and the processes that led to the evolution of current farm groups. Perceived degree of support services provided was measured as an interval variable. At the individual level (n=137), perceptions were measured on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, and the degree of group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness was measured with a Likert-type scale adapted from Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985), and other scale response type measures were developed based on operational definitions. Thematic content analysis was performed in analyzing nominal data collected through group discussions. Frequencies and measures of central tendency were used to summarize data. T-tests for the equality of means and equality of variance were performed in analyzing interval data. Causal relationships between perceived group cohesiveness and explanatory variables were identified through stepwise linear regression. Findings from the study revealed prevalence of high turnover rates (approximately 85%) among beneficiaries in study farms. Various patterns of participation had evolved and as a result, both individual as well as group activities were performed. Differences between farms with low and high degree of satisfaction with benefits acquired from the farms, the degree of group governance, and degree of perceived cohesiveness were significant. Linear regression analysis revealed that group governance and satisfaction with benefits were significant predictors of group cohesiveness. These explanatory variables accounted for 20% of the variance.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Tirhani Prud Manganyi.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Place, Nick T.
Local: Co-adviser: Russo, Sandra L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021601:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAACO INGEST_TIME 2010-11-18T19:54:01Z PACKAGE UFE0021601_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1051975 DFID F20101118_AABRCK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH manganyi_t_Page_192.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
57adaf3a549a5b51877ae491881dfa7a
SHA-1
3c4f888fee51a9c4bae33744ba1b94f7dc003310
59602 F20101118_AABRBW manganyi_t_Page_164.jp2
eccbc94b52e6c73c3e94b83f3849b02e
820932060153d7ff81c8b2f1e35c2f9f382afb7a
86778 F20101118_AABQXE manganyi_t_Page_122.jpg
f75af85ee7738b1338cb00f2c60b8e5f
1ff968f52ba53a252575d8e8978f92b5c7649de6
84705 F20101118_AABQWQ manganyi_t_Page_085.jpg
21de85d25791e570ad2a4ebce3941f05
67c34d933b8a75b72fc059e5452bf10a8f46f56f
1051970 F20101118_AABRCL manganyi_t_Page_193.jp2
9ce05398ad8aa5890c14a92da6c1cfc0
ecc071c65cce17d652d7373b2b0f6fd51bea3b67
60711 F20101118_AABRBX manganyi_t_Page_165.jp2
ee3c55745246c79560548176c9b3b202
fe7bb80c34e76af915bef73110901ecda7360a41
88456 F20101118_AABQXF manganyi_t_Page_123.jpg
bf53312a0404f685768308b9c8bc4c55
30f1089c13b83c6365273080e8283504dd9664a2
84639 F20101118_AABQWR manganyi_t_Page_086.jpg
61817601bf64b38c4bf596d015da7746
5baa6f1867e282539d0c4715c8b0ca68b7245cce
25271604 F20101118_AABRDA manganyi_t_Page_029.tif
b9dc9a080b293a60f4da15a1064a35c0
2f7c32884bd3dd25fa412eb686795bb7303f639e
60547 F20101118_AABRCM manganyi_t_Page_196.jp2
79be2be1575da4d782974f72172d4213
775d1cc092d4e8312b5e58232f1fff4042caff9a
70062 F20101118_AABRBY manganyi_t_Page_166.jp2
c662dbbc4f44f5677d5caead7a6d5e07
7466029ee148d48756aeec773c49693547e337e2
92514 F20101118_AABQXG manganyi_t_Page_125.jpg
acac72a54d2be51160624ce2eb3c024a
8d096b3b08419132280eb752aababedad58b9126
F20101118_AABRDB manganyi_t_Page_032.tif
cf6b9f4fe8cc541e06345060976a58fa
6fba9bd0ee0354b58c2c51496cd42ee6dfde28e3
1053954 F20101118_AABRCN manganyi_t_Page_001.tif
88d3967fb1553d8cccf30c35602fe71a
184feef917041af9a733b8cff60b4dc08a3e4534
115529 F20101118_AABRBZ manganyi_t_Page_167.jp2
e400599e5b7353be6a27968e4589fb16
a152966789f11a02327ecfa277b80ca35c6ca868
89687 F20101118_AABQXH manganyi_t_Page_126.jpg
8faff0a2cd2c62983a4a3d779689e059
00c08e0075efc6275efc4c28b0349d8156357f90
83900 F20101118_AABQWS manganyi_t_Page_088.jpg
6786ee86b7a5212767eb81150ce8f098
27ec966cb81d5075426ef3aba4e02d5451e36fc5
F20101118_AABRDC manganyi_t_Page_033.tif
c7e8ead8124e5232804261cd698385c7
41efd1d2632c785f4f60c0ae810527de5b7e7a5c
F20101118_AABRCO manganyi_t_Page_004.tif
3c85c8991578c1ce03f8486be8975ed9
5a29946837a10069c7df75cfca70e86731b803ee
78328 F20101118_AABQXI manganyi_t_Page_127.jpg
17062eb530da9fad1d84937063a60d1f
ab7c6f64af7fe5b877d8bdd95979fb766830baec
89458 F20101118_AABQWT manganyi_t_Page_090.jpg
0d4f091a6dcc7a23e0a3cf7027477f98
260e855853db9126c8a12bff575b5a1bb24efb19
F20101118_AABQAA manganyi_t_Page_082.tif
f735632b123102482e92d9bd48ddd4b1
8d58737e32d5def48c8d34fbc37ead24a90b040a
F20101118_AABRDD manganyi_t_Page_035.tif
dd33a006da34016007bd6fb6ea440ddb
653e5b6a986e7eed479ddce91a6e930013de705b
F20101118_AABRCP manganyi_t_Page_005.tif
0661dc42a4d3cf37226cb3164c46c973
1edddfc2193ff589894b3329ce93ae5e34c8ee5e
79005 F20101118_AABQXJ manganyi_t_Page_128.jpg
83b8acb392bae83a014482a3792539e9
76a7bfad24bd682367ac1cbf746a1bbec95b5ca3
31622 F20101118_AABQWU manganyi_t_Page_094.jpg
a935275b3f96028596e89597d2696d0f
3e1f873e224579c9eb6aadf42e53d07ac85f3beb
F20101118_AABQAB manganyi_t_Page_115.tif
9e080d11c90e2387669f96cecc58d069
38e6e852c6a86b66f081a26ea50953eb8377f9d5
F20101118_AABRDE manganyi_t_Page_037.tif
443316e179b6a065146abf8d88cbfc32
80b55061f4b834a98b6a06aeab982860a947ed65
F20101118_AABRCQ manganyi_t_Page_007.tif
019868d007624b69d54ed5cc2033863c
fcbddd7bf34feefce9c29f82fbb1a754805d9216
78864 F20101118_AABQXK manganyi_t_Page_131.jpg
e028d9e201dfa70467d9b40c2339a634
c20f4385f57a60972dcfe50438c63bb73d0d4302
51846 F20101118_AABQWV manganyi_t_Page_096.jpg
30f242b551b2bb075f5be115f0640cdd
aad4780f1997cd60aa714ab280c3fee46e13886b
F20101118_AABQAC manganyi_t_Page_011.tif
9914459b09bb87e4ab62bc1c3be53f2f
0f06b0914af9f8a301100ac64e8c74fb3088d0a1
F20101118_AABRDF manganyi_t_Page_039.tif
1706f37b48c4e152817e3495c2bdf17f
1edb5e74acff94720bcb3fe9e1aaed42cbc0e9bd
F20101118_AABRCR manganyi_t_Page_009.tif
3a1a3126e1b1e10e7876ffa88a09c0c3
ec0d1940d6cbfb184ede4a608650c989586d031e
90498 F20101118_AABQXL manganyi_t_Page_132.jpg
f7cc39e4dfe62900e4bd8dd81aef521b
68a9432323162fa9f6cf9365737fde062ce4bd32
40531 F20101118_AABQWW manganyi_t_Page_097.jpg
6cfde8d5d8268936fcde8fd91a1581ad
560889b2cc0f8fd782ac76970feef22bb7c9a32f
120042 F20101118_AABQAD manganyi_t_Page_046.jp2
eddef083e89bf7e2014e3e691cbf6cc5
e3925b8a83804dadcd1580477a12dae385ba647d
F20101118_AABRDG manganyi_t_Page_041.tif
b53a939ba92ff510e7d2f57b624feeb9
b1fcd4dc63050517d603a0304e19af5e7d4776a5
F20101118_AABRCS manganyi_t_Page_010.tif
0304d83b25f50060f68ae369a961e2c2
95ce802cb3aee59f2004a54c92e54d83b230ff87
87224 F20101118_AABQYA manganyi_t_Page_168.jpg
8d19dd935198275b3e285918696b03c2
2b6be536fa58f857f1862aa88126bee510d94cf6
85749 F20101118_AABQXM manganyi_t_Page_135.jpg
ce5bf1fa9105b9576ca34cd60a1e97a9
e49c91e23e5bf559faaec79a419207d3c005aebb
22418 F20101118_AABQWX manganyi_t_Page_103.jpg
a7449a60690200a8def7cad306ace8c3
d5de821431d27889afe9ff728024f7b88af053db
28438 F20101118_AABQAE manganyi_t_Page_066.QC.jpg
ef04db3a256a3dedad79005a10797e8a
2cdcc70f563223b7f72d009a4580963a537a431d
F20101118_AABRDH manganyi_t_Page_042.tif
b0c455e2f28b633086e871552f17e4b3
705cbfc3894ec3e235e7e2d892aec13e07a32685
F20101118_AABRCT manganyi_t_Page_013.tif
3e2fe1fc2958d76980d7db83ec94e126
59c6515b634c3900f7e749dd3a4fa8d0ec872829
84227 F20101118_AABQYB manganyi_t_Page_169.jpg
5307dc44959d14831cc448ebcdef2853
3a8c8258eafb300c43d46a9bf16ee25d83b15f50
88334 F20101118_AABQXN manganyi_t_Page_137.jpg
6128f34b5af71166a6404a96c8b61efe
a4a2191ad91d14d38f3ccdf10bb54ea91320e63e
28605 F20101118_AABQWY manganyi_t_Page_104.jpg
6700cb2ec1f39f13a573083b50463c4e
b3a49919cdc29e00097ebe1ef18b1c7f3ac6d2a2
91504 F20101118_AABQAF manganyi_t_Page_109.jpg
59da8c439f11b1df708d9e5984aaec67
f2005be68462998bb1c170af6f8bbaeaa6e4884c
F20101118_AABRDI manganyi_t_Page_044.tif
1bd3ecf618e9733fa21286dc40caac86
5b58d31afde2b1548d5cf5bb7ea06ce0775645f1
F20101118_AABRCU manganyi_t_Page_014.tif
66d4ca85a69ff98a8059c46e575b3bf9
9fee29e952683fce5ffdd24bfa5ded303c8971ec
F20101118_AABPVA manganyi_t_Page_048.tif
83fb8b9ff5605c2233a5985a99693071
77ecf8fb390c24c49389d23bc10c0ef37e44d700
93396 F20101118_AABQYC manganyi_t_Page_174.jpg
7f71bb38a91eab3e41cff1d0716474e4
870c12eb7b3b9d27f08efee82ca0e78f5c6fa9c9
16961 F20101118_AABQXO manganyi_t_Page_140.jpg
0047c28ca809b6ebc2ae346339c7f1d1
72f5c58c4fb312816ff359e5afd21baaa1e68783
29172 F20101118_AABQWZ manganyi_t_Page_105.jpg
5df79b37eb2b32887ebd490925968655
fe5ce1af0445e4aedad564dcadc8582ebc55610a
56734 F20101118_AABQAG manganyi_t_Page_095.jpg
6c20345bbe3f4c273068aefbb58cb9dd
b628fe4eb9bd325469943c3b60c54bdce92f812d
F20101118_AABRDJ manganyi_t_Page_045.tif
17f3fb400dd9be19e7b1554e7eafeafc
cabb2c65cee6d472f7ad2629d9ac32f6693b6da1
F20101118_AABRCV manganyi_t_Page_020.tif
e6070271eb8e3f44425f5e02de8a1ac7
be957f921acc65e669ce37a57bf0c8779d47442b
49404 F20101118_AABPVB manganyi_t_Page_104.jp2
f0fc10f281ac701fcc35c5e490ce19e6
14adcf45f7c1fe7f378e750692903fc386793711
92555 F20101118_AABQYD manganyi_t_Page_176.jpg
0c789fed71c0b6becdbfe0cf60a5410b
d1e190f0acb9409bb0d9eb328083f3e11dd1c562
42081 F20101118_AABQXP manganyi_t_Page_141.jpg
9d7688998a7426217ad47e33c264b9a1
3ad88479993b6bad0bc3e51d7c70f158eabb283b
6179 F20101118_AABQAH manganyi_t_Page_030thm.jpg
db6520a84d6b70ab9947b6bde71b6a5e
4d4a1ebe9e2e8b16ad159ffd8b8e69f9b4e68c55
F20101118_AABRDK manganyi_t_Page_047.tif
3237448cb9c1c2e5fe01aa68a7db3510
d761214ee234b8a08567cb4b0c123f9b5f3c8962
F20101118_AABRCW manganyi_t_Page_021.tif
1eb01b9f4773fda3c779b355f5d60823
d98a713919356e5c870c55de988e6e81ab2228de
58251 F20101118_AABPVC manganyi_t_Page_166.jpg
c6d269913c25091ac6fdf10ac4bd1c02
fd5cc22089784517e664f436cce16f108444a061
89197 F20101118_AABQYE manganyi_t_Page_178.jpg
979eda56cba3e6bd132a1ef037434700
892f51ec8a55e30f06571588846a58c41c1ea564
44383 F20101118_AABQXQ manganyi_t_Page_145.jpg
05f55f1d04000a3c40db20773d8501b5
489e84fee0e02f345a872fc900cd6a5223ed3cac
54682 F20101118_AABQAI manganyi_t_Page_112.pro
ad20ab513ae27362841a61e94bb5fb96
74d35bda67e178e7a641d2dcdf6a5c57feada9ca
F20101118_AABRDL manganyi_t_Page_051.tif
47d9b78414b3c279c7014f8c564da3d5
c4515a55e169e850f2da6fe244df4ab2fca3f4ca
F20101118_AABRCX manganyi_t_Page_024.tif
a450e6b967167ed9f11f384bc6a860e5
b611dfcce9503cf8d097a8c73bc764c5d38bd7c2
F20101118_AABPVD manganyi_t_Page_124.tif
ee80f027881c1728d51f2f8e172573c4
c36d7200fa5ac3b9120e85ca4e1baed6d626b5a5
83663 F20101118_AABQYF manganyi_t_Page_180.jpg
4ca9363dd00d0d2c08d1999b46e42439
3da17b8c9abab757b9abc9d0d63bf1b6f963536b
49636 F20101118_AABQXR manganyi_t_Page_149.jpg
abeb95cec01807f7b41bca03e16eebe8
9e40675591a686234f4d425b4458933e06f2b44d
92001 F20101118_AABQAJ manganyi_t_Page_181.jpg
02d41221ee90e887b99c91f08b7d56e7
d42fc9d6ddb93dde09d5d5809618c71d86c8ed36
F20101118_AABREA manganyi_t_Page_080.tif
9957e1bd60d2316d426d27bc93cb67be
9b7c8df14b72e44d0848ec0a1101af6eb0a7aa17
F20101118_AABRDM manganyi_t_Page_052.tif
f52fe4cb6c3cdbb389cad76ab10b1fca
6e15d9908a46a1bc3d307cc677096131ac41960e
F20101118_AABRCY manganyi_t_Page_025.tif
60f466ea5d97e9ea95918331ad2d4bbf
7001506ac102cdb74002336be0291dde98deaec1
1151 F20101118_AABPVE manganyi_t_Page_147.txt
e6fc788f2c7ebfcac4b28ae51a0e90f8
edf5a3f660884b64587c022c058faa17bf313e48
108330 F20101118_AABQYG manganyi_t_Page_184.jpg
48d0689a8ab30481427f21cfa72ba52d
71428f6be924626ccdab8ed78a75385c0dc31fb1
45458 F20101118_AABQXS manganyi_t_Page_152.jpg
e56aab2872c22b0151f0383cf9a0f056
a6bbd73bd2b656e555d6bca3eeb02844d0c01d60
85319 F20101118_AABQAK manganyi_t_Page_044.jpg
329df2fa94ee8ba56d0d81505be77bef
49510ebb4d35dc939059c74498a91324dd849008
F20101118_AABREB manganyi_t_Page_084.tif
c9f3a06d48fb87c0b93f1ff8d091c024
ca0897d7a6e96fd02d7f9a3a87dd42603aab9dbd
F20101118_AABRDN manganyi_t_Page_054.tif
695b65df15b5d38e4b254b02f3dad9da
7a00ca545be13ebce596f5fa4589b44a20896f93
F20101118_AABRCZ manganyi_t_Page_027.tif
7a7b3ff5cfb4e80becc94a9e61506cd7
ea6cab687674024cb6904a6b9031d5e0bf296931
20759 F20101118_AABPVF manganyi_t_Page_151.pro
559cf926fb8f539e05aa749f51de77f4
e9d01b65a000f22ccba7e2aec910cc689ed05756
109422 F20101118_AABQYH manganyi_t_Page_186.jpg
3794f0162302bc3f6e3059f3aa2d55e0
6630f887dc02afa6d3f50d1862cc951f4d1a33d7
F20101118_AABQAL manganyi_t_Page_191.tif
4dbf4b0bf281cd008c5749c50ea4c47f
dbb2d4399f3f7e4c78c62cbcd18457cf8e432468
F20101118_AABREC manganyi_t_Page_086.tif
707298ef34c298500995db7ddb6f1b9b
19e6c6659e0805ea256647922c0febcf0c6488b2
1054428 F20101118_AABRDO manganyi_t_Page_056.tif
4d4eb3056b95280633d51d0aaa589553
c435b83ec827fc1530a1bebfce97a17c7962c7ff
15610 F20101118_AABPVG manganyi_t_Page_150.QC.jpg
a8e2d2ff9433652184a5cedb68092059
5ab63077e516f9a93953071bd2f2b3262813b8b0
97858 F20101118_AABQYI manganyi_t_Page_187.jpg
57d1c9a73f993847d431e832f87e43f0
9f22ac5e6c00ed4b285fc0a380cc38dac9fd7a6a
4185 F20101118_AABPUR manganyi_t_Page_011thm.jpg
d96e22348b2aa2c0b927ce656da31401
c1b65f76cd536b32213466caf1ea9ed8690e8de7
96423 F20101118_AABQXT manganyi_t_Page_154.jpg
0376acddba6398611bda999a4df5338d
0f48f451d139bbe6fc2cc80a60b56c581a1cfd78
44311 F20101118_AABQBA manganyi_t_Page_164.jpg
a98b5fdf664e3648e5a1941aa18ecfe4
bb62fa8a157dca1c343310472ec5581ae2d932b1
1666 F20101118_AABQAM manganyi_t_Page_100.txt
5299643b94597896b939bf33bf32ee21
b049388bd7f1463c89e9980cabd35556d0ba5c9b
F20101118_AABRED manganyi_t_Page_087.tif
92c0e06cae6e5df9f59d8aec87788339
e341708d3eb4469649d7499b899f074696bcaa3d
25265604 F20101118_AABRDP manganyi_t_Page_057.tif
939991c8c870e3c12d7e81e1e18b9e38
26caf2ceeb628438d88eeeeca1c3c965e82906a1
28960 F20101118_AABPVH manganyi_t_Page_089.QC.jpg
b1baf9e2b61a34406a7501fea6308ea1
4f9510210e56d5ce63f9b8bf694c1e582b528281
115107 F20101118_AABQYJ manganyi_t_Page_188.jpg
d7bf22ef67f0f5279f52ddd36883fe62
5a106d565e98f94caca4fb40e517d55e35ceed10
116242 F20101118_AABPUS manganyi_t_Page_176.jp2
6035d9226af68bd2426fc89da169da2f
638f20d8a15a11b12096f1915deea681a3b5bf13
41438 F20101118_AABQXU manganyi_t_Page_156.jpg
b886d280e7d630b8ab31ed6882650ddf
3174104ccd9d5b0089ad8566021d16ec0e1201f6
F20101118_AABQBB manganyi_t_Page_018.tif
8c095f2f5dc62f8f794c771ce23fd4bd
c8162cff349186ac16df3f3c80723c403745c848
11220 F20101118_AABQAN manganyi_t_Page_079.QC.jpg
df643c73e619a9af1f62dda36202cfde
27310e2542731756c5f181e67e6181e3482a35eb
F20101118_AABREE manganyi_t_Page_088.tif
67c92fd9b8fc10e826045a23e1286dbc
e2c3fb6f0e66b7ba7408967a7029a155a37f6f7a
F20101118_AABRDQ manganyi_t_Page_059.tif
824060c1596db36edfb9885253ea616f
dff352727d3760fa0988c154a952d936651caf69
6680 F20101118_AABPVI manganyi_t_Page_124thm.jpg
6368599720a24c6ba89b805a5fba65f4
14cf90d4eb6150cd227d5da7f8cc48d2431b2acc
108469 F20101118_AABQYK manganyi_t_Page_191.jpg
c73699f0700b9bb7aa2bd9db0fc0b7c4
2142e364c9a3e18e99ec2d412820a0ef8003bab2
115205 F20101118_AABPUT manganyi_t_Page_034.jp2
65c4e1fa6bfdd0d9947e0b8bc9276525
04c7a5b489e4a79dbc3daf19b7a84c125786c2cd
52043 F20101118_AABQXV manganyi_t_Page_160.jpg
74d87bf578add40e0958ff4aec1bc4fd
d06a9e5f59ef6fd1c89728de847735d10222cfd1
115757 F20101118_AABQBC manganyi_t_Page_039.jp2
d8eea64f59c18900fa3e485a99595471
3f433dd5daebddffda68d052376085e87141c612
51768 F20101118_AABQAO manganyi_t_Page_106.pro
79b011b8040c57e5e8ce6cca9a57f359
5319e1f5dfa3f1015bb3f7569aa41cf7585764d9
F20101118_AABREF manganyi_t_Page_089.tif
cd835011593f1e021c6610fa0e2c69ab
d7bbdf67c4ba3951ff0c59a1d012fd23c07dfa64
F20101118_AABRDR manganyi_t_Page_061.tif
2246d20e51f9d4b3d1bbafda0a77dd5c
1b5875d1b9d1fd24ee30a971494a096f90985f35
90861 F20101118_AABPVJ manganyi_t_Page_076.jpg
5e8f48f4586dc6b7e3ac55044a53f35d
be89407d3e7113af5399bfe88bea5a91c9e47e54
105880 F20101118_AABQYL manganyi_t_Page_192.jpg
584e79160f71576f5514935f6a29b25c
5aa88456d1f8cd9686f4715c14c091924a008586
97 F20101118_AABPUU manganyi_t_Page_002.txt
f41131b79044e82c8724e02aea53d32d
0d6fe38eb762c0d633df43485360d35f9e6c9dd9
49500 F20101118_AABQXW manganyi_t_Page_161.jpg
da2af8c198eaadf2aafc624e6be4333e
ef510f91d9fa7c6170710312adcfe458eaacc771
28941 F20101118_AABQBD manganyi_t_Page_181.QC.jpg
bd5dfb7590d2dd4fb02abe128109e5ae
fe12cbec5e3e6fe29c27b77e8b68eadc037da60e
51097 F20101118_AABQAP manganyi_t_Page_033.pro
ae9411cf860232371b77d12d36109c52
e6f041e2295291bf966dc7f91d46ab96f8787dd4
F20101118_AABREG manganyi_t_Page_094.tif
3257bd40f36247c3d6b6a3a1427df705
aeb09e0f2cba5e75233614583dd59798961341e4
F20101118_AABRDS manganyi_t_Page_063.tif
5d5f49f2fa4d7cd6a9bac21b957b08b1
340f5b333e01a984ff759c27cf152950c56033cc
119869 F20101118_AABQZA manganyi_t_Page_024.jp2
d6f0c89f33d7e187ebcc576f19bf691a
06302288c17f4ef9131a11bfb71605067c689aa5
6521 F20101118_AABPVK manganyi_t_Page_117thm.jpg
12d50c2a58ce0aae6facae0a6f5ba2e3
26242422578d8155ebc502aa43b513eb77168df5
109344 F20101118_AABQYM manganyi_t_Page_193.jpg
9b45a22bc67f71d57179b1823f06aa9e
618653b3a04ae82427c42a8802878820b12baf9a
71551 F20101118_AABPUV manganyi_t_Page_100.jpg
f4e3c7eca3f189614c1bf2f4741aba19
efe315068e54e210c30153658491dbee04d78476
58259 F20101118_AABQXX manganyi_t_Page_162.jpg
a2b8e583ad74543a63acb453852a1732
8e2797cb42b69fdf6789a806d655c0b41ed7c3ef
22043 F20101118_AABQBE manganyi_t_Page_148.pro
bae7eeee5424baeb3a61e3f05298cd17
b9796f00d81acb42f1b28eb16d5b9f55b1037f70
71091 F20101118_AABQAQ manganyi_t_Page_190.pro
8707b078fa5dcd1740196f24983a4c29
7d51dd6bc1a7b25dbbb0ab84559d75a6476b948b
F20101118_AABREH manganyi_t_Page_095.tif
f19ad78725682b904196d64b7461da0f
4c4d71bfae0b663a4665cb747d69ce1e0bd2e5ce
F20101118_AABRDT manganyi_t_Page_067.tif
4d7c4a917255ba3acec9c4a4dd148938
1a0f6628349798ddd5b7802f05816de06bdbb8c7
115301 F20101118_AABQZB manganyi_t_Page_025.jp2
5efeb0e7834d4745ad451abf842d3838
a264310c55de960aa4d2794246dd6e97ece5e885
21101 F20101118_AABPVL manganyi_t_Page_098.QC.jpg
7f7215808ce937dfb90c6af22c63214a
779b286f78e919578aa2639c6de64f57ae479c8b
112068 F20101118_AABQYN manganyi_t_Page_194.jpg
a5adca2c17fa3b410f8487499e8af1d3
30409cc1c2a315f54f289941777eb4cab68642e5
30366 F20101118_AABPUW manganyi_t_Page_186.QC.jpg
3835e41c3b46cb388f633ae237382a3a
3d7e99d3d207909c4746e5380e91870a48678068
55286 F20101118_AABQXY manganyi_t_Page_163.jpg
63e8bfc3c968c258d427bc0897e7cd29
2cc19c282ec902fb30c63745db05571a316a3e4d
28115 F20101118_AABQBF manganyi_t_Page_018.QC.jpg
343fcaaebdfde2ea181f4ae586b53243
a09637b62e0074261a69861e296697242d130a20
84179 F20101118_AABQAR manganyi_t_Page_173.jpg
ed6d867c1f1c9467ef192996870ac748
104c218a0e6eff6a7ae369d2a05361e93112bf1d
F20101118_AABREI manganyi_t_Page_096.tif
0f11928c7d10b6e20c7acfad9ba972ef
2a6c5233badc45163d56ddeee1d8ba5b27b155ec
F20101118_AABRDU manganyi_t_Page_070.tif
6d6d1c58f37eb1eef6498443ebe53ba9
54d53ba2f7204e2f1d8ab1b54160ccb51dbdb46e
108907 F20101118_AABQZC manganyi_t_Page_028.jp2
957be1332cefb7a57c933690ccad321c
14d29b33d6c43884f7637caac25a848d1e3b82c3
83622 F20101118_AABPVM manganyi_t_Page_116.jpg
7f8df048e69b59adaf8edef666469716
67a85cc7c16c46d16417bef6f0629a07da0875ba
9176 F20101118_AABQYO manganyi_t_Page_003.jp2
af275aaa99878e8e546f2adc1fa0b965
1b027cd72769b07acb53ca83a407a1803739c1b5
104901 F20101118_AABPUX manganyi_t_Page_133.jp2
b85be51af3a12a7311f846579f6a667a
ce72ed5c0d3cf1acdcfeed251b8a85cbb5734f17
88910 F20101118_AABQXZ manganyi_t_Page_167.jpg
f859f49abf4276f852294bd7b8c06d89
998bccdfd1e00999e0447bacdb2eb68b84fef58d
2160 F20101118_AABQBG manganyi_t_Page_035.txt
66245066f7bcd753c858b1624dda792c
374c39654c307eb51f2f547d5f8d3a560cf4abec
112434 F20101118_AABPWA manganyi_t_Page_033.jp2
2f8b459697647e1c0c21ef973d931de6
96244597b882fa82b15b5a3f95039e61612db7a6
119507 F20101118_AABQAS manganyi_t_Page_043.jp2
a655157303bbd8e98384335c7879172d
bb87956e8e81050db18e7d2f79922b6fb927e65a
F20101118_AABREJ manganyi_t_Page_097.tif
1168e777fd42a0bb17c5144998db9055
45d1a48d52fe46bef43cd3c13e98d88026ab6fe4
F20101118_AABRDV manganyi_t_Page_073.tif
33cfe0d4c3a44fd07c16ba8a49dd8625
32a6101cd9f0c75bd2c64bfc2c4a0f8f82f04167
109752 F20101118_AABQZD manganyi_t_Page_030.jp2
31611353bc4fc7448fd22022c6c5a3e7
ebe8500552e6e3e93825b16fad6ae5cf77bc09ee
26609 F20101118_AABPVN manganyi_t_Page_132.QC.jpg
a018524e8d6ab86ce938c627556a5c41
b7023575ddac949120411c07addfcbaa706807cf
17681 F20101118_AABQYP manganyi_t_Page_006.jp2
2933d96ece53689b66f3eac57a9eaa49
c1a030a0f64e78089abf5da4e8b860927898ee02
2173 F20101118_AABPUY manganyi_t_Page_125.txt
97f8392576ff2db91298a861b3b9c871
5f96a0157a286e3a5b6958c736830ada36bfa4b7
F20101118_AABQBH manganyi_t_Page_026.tif
788d2a78dd163e30185bae94684707b1
04905dced20923e12642257d701d61a5cad9bad8
29023 F20101118_AABPWB manganyi_t_Page_157.jpg
1a130c3c15da3cad18b0c862dc7bc009
96d8d6d8e6c02e08cba12d35f1c24e99fcaa244d
6339 F20101118_AABQAT manganyi_t_Page_060thm.jpg
53c81151542b7a58c94b2d8d45e147b4
23105110e787c4132265705e14dad91da01dae0d
F20101118_AABREK manganyi_t_Page_098.tif
2950c31034379787bb58a9162bd7f363
065e98b08bcae883c1ad05c3914235426259bf95
F20101118_AABRDW manganyi_t_Page_074.tif
8485b4acf6171ecbe3b009c2d3b93aa6
84105e646ba4491f91ec1773ba0b29eacbf808ec
120021 F20101118_AABQZE manganyi_t_Page_035.jp2
4418b60cfd30cbf7b1bb6bcc0d852705
a96cb3fbffcbc7f0d0c87c0d3abf6833391b062b
8559 F20101118_AABPVO manganyi_t_Page_094.QC.jpg
e15d7620b5112d2f5f20abfdf667b273
ac7e80698e2d1a08863d73df0dead5b8c13bde14
1051961 F20101118_AABQYQ manganyi_t_Page_008.jp2
5c081aa3de5002df9596f6b63c1f0f83
522f17e2f9710f66b32bbdc4b31261ece32e0a91
52848 F20101118_AABPUZ manganyi_t_Page_146.jp2
8911324e8da8328fffea39ae7d162d7d
37b5c93767c81d7eddbd644a1773e3eabe460020
52177 F20101118_AABQBI manganyi_t_Page_107.pro
f3720fe3e7fdf7a484056d64037676c1
c5c9e852cd9e732cf76c97fa4217d07084b6715f
3887 F20101118_AABPWC manganyi_t_Page_158thm.jpg
69ee712c70e48eb088c147133a0b9261
7438ec4703375bbaafb942b3b65f11fd1cc4c438
4491 F20101118_AABQAU manganyi_t_Page_075thm.jpg
08ff6f148a28857699c9d3982beaff4f
7b1dc1774b7ff132433e12f51104677df19d03ed
F20101118_AABREL manganyi_t_Page_099.tif
abdcb6ac5501544ca30d65e0725feec1
0f4467fd044eea983bd97151e11b6dbc8a67768a
F20101118_AABRDX manganyi_t_Page_075.tif
39cf0c39f5a70d09c9e9a35982391152
7a5431ef05975df19749e61b44572b5cdca1b9bc
112828 F20101118_AABQZF manganyi_t_Page_036.jp2
62f25d5c86d23813bef80955658e1131
0a502db0442856c39cd069122c4b3b59e5fbe7bf
67329 F20101118_AABPVP manganyi_t_Page_077.jpg
0c184523c7a1a8969f00e9082c9cb75f
aa8f99ce8243837bb200a3bb2ff9e4eb439acf7b
1051986 F20101118_AABQYR manganyi_t_Page_009.jp2
5ea9ec24ce384b8816baf459893cdac2
0a254f9842436234f3421ad3b2c77ecf581ddd23
1497 F20101118_AABQBJ manganyi_t_Page_140thm.jpg
146fea754811fde57d24ed0bf677a440
629da4815141d7b1bcfac32a1491488448ded707
92767 F20101118_AABPWD manganyi_t_Page_175.jpg
341ddf3e127c59abcfe0af1ea4357f33
7dcff05379f213a88d00166b2e29c207ec0552a7
55504 F20101118_AABQAV manganyi_t_Page_016.pro
263ac88a6f96c8d57d27e5fe34148073
80daf8fc18d1cbf88ae002df454c193ffe8bb087
F20101118_AABRFA manganyi_t_Page_122.tif
65779c80765d650346b4ad97f5eb1266
132c4eed1abb42e834fea5769eed4636eb640b9a
F20101118_AABREM manganyi_t_Page_101.tif
689b502a66409496247150917a4b63cf
0351336a7cc7afa2091e04dbe7001690f1605079
F20101118_AABRDY manganyi_t_Page_076.tif
e8116632b4decd5c6df0aece83725628
8d44fc0ca0fb652bee71e2d99029639303b001ff
119831 F20101118_AABQZG manganyi_t_Page_037.jp2
7fb4f5c773419d18dd73b5a44da781de
066a7cb3f92327fa2f87e63a2c4876da10f02ac1
110538 F20101118_AABPVQ manganyi_t_Page_129.jp2
a0212d1c72fa6ab5d4cb4f0b506d0bcb
2b775ebc0a27ada6de25ca10d0f19268969ac961
1051980 F20101118_AABQYS manganyi_t_Page_010.jp2
a85a8b97f42b7ecac4b2cdd328bf04a6
f68059f0a2efbfe1a5f107915fdafe0bae522331
90499 F20101118_AABQBK manganyi_t_Page_037.jpg
c2198cd39b46983de562c18ed71072f6
e224fb538088daeb4afc655fae6cc2f1794f8e0d
116986 F20101118_AABPWE manganyi_t_Page_136.jp2
5279d55898268a0fa83c9205a7444bbe
c95a6b6b2879be50afaa3ed027b19d838e3f39df
80644 F20101118_AABQAW manganyi_t_Page_101.jp2
eefaec90e874dd581bf2c817ba26b102
8568137f2ca464e588c15e1a93212ff7045941bc
F20101118_AABRFB manganyi_t_Page_123.tif
7323f8b1d4638a2609d2e84fab3a4d71
6ae7d2efdf6a9ae6f3a3d127f77761979ad1bb30
F20101118_AABREN manganyi_t_Page_103.tif
d21492928196e92813831049b83dc999
2d6e517b9a3cf18112abe870f5fe3c43867a873d
F20101118_AABRDZ manganyi_t_Page_078.tif
0d69b8c4dcc38a7c096be237ae204707
8159257d1cc11432217aad364619ee3673caebf6
114054 F20101118_AABQZH manganyi_t_Page_041.jp2
32bce55bccfd0fb8a98db8c3605ab735
dc2a2339e8e2cab4f5afca60f169df22fd834f23
51850 F20101118_AABPVR manganyi_t_Page_036.pro
50618d3a1911d8e32f6895e4034537ad
b1b20f56e7b1060c7b9e377eb2adc02d3123f969
1051983 F20101118_AABQYT manganyi_t_Page_011.jp2
54d506b6a3a9a73e2fda6b9a5e7ec9dd
21cee09acf4d843e2ee8ef30a923ed0293f5272f
2319 F20101118_AABQBL manganyi_t_Page_012thm.jpg
73a74dfa071f69991f1a6a65851b10d2
b0ffca9af805348a4dd5bdc71207f86114104c17
93212 F20101118_AABPWF manganyi_t_Page_120.jpg
5ec9dcf13ac584c0c3ee28b062e0ce47
3e4ad6c931e87a52aebb3737593e28da6b6cd4da
F20101118_AABQAX manganyi_t_Page_079.tif
05e4b719606b83980d341d73cff79544
bc78fac164a60ae0ff4f926df7cef6f83dca8a0a
F20101118_AABRFC manganyi_t_Page_126.tif
818065d031ce01b6b3548f53e12a33df
6ef1398c87666711308d0025b944142ad95ed64d
F20101118_AABREO manganyi_t_Page_104.tif
78a75d199a526f9564392cb0a397c7db
047e24a1bca2eaf51243f0e931477be40b75df28
111608 F20101118_AABQZI manganyi_t_Page_044.jp2
5fbf74e1738d6ed70d1d8d306e28aff6
4c3100a84c65955e7cb14bbc5a22123f5e5bea7d
21409 F20101118_AABQCA manganyi_t_Page_182.jpg
da2b589cb3ab78ef943829ecb4f50c01
55dfffa3c690bd9c3ade15dd5159181851e09cee
9407 F20101118_AABQBM manganyi_t_Page_195.jpg
019625ab87ed6271769c27fe47ed990f
d1142873e6fa906d2e17c6bc404130338e150482
2475 F20101118_AABPWG manganyi_t_Page_010.txt
bce0b286514e66cbb9fdb0ba807970f2
db4a8077f63715dfe6eef2bfed96be390f8c1c81
4179 F20101118_AABQAY manganyi_t_Page_144thm.jpg
10e5c8b6e4fdca935240ffe2e10544fa
c411d08076bc77ca763c105d699a8650b3dfcbef
F20101118_AABRFD manganyi_t_Page_128.tif
825b90a77cb8b06371119dd03ef04e84
c2e87f4acd065463764e1afe1f0761a325b9442a
F20101118_AABREP manganyi_t_Page_105.tif
a8a51852a24b503eda79ae9bfd9a7862
1b1bcfed560ad0ae50cb0ddd8fe50d963490ca24
115214 F20101118_AABQZJ manganyi_t_Page_047.jp2
a295d9a6ff6c005e088328ade571c7eb
c731bf590ebd34fd972d0c1f36d8623d0915a946
89894 F20101118_AABPVS manganyi_t_Page_098.jp2
12f9d821cf9297003026c51287ffbac6
5ca8a02a688b952f61c801ccaa7ede913dc08332
64981 F20101118_AABQYU manganyi_t_Page_014.jp2
6e7a416417bef56b7522a29a7a6ccad0
3e6ed65ec04e9426f078e1838236f0519519de82
118517 F20101118_AABQCB manganyi_t_Page_175.jp2
1fa92f6341fe17b4dfbfd4328cea014f
6321489dab13f8891bf395912d1dc7a5972a8edc
989 F20101118_AABQBN manganyi_t_Page_152.txt
d58603140402a361727500e004b886f4
4039201c5894b23da7f0e868893795d339ce43d0
27751 F20101118_AABPWH manganyi_t_Page_134.QC.jpg
57c56d4e2f536711a6af101277144caf
6d223d569522f5904769270fc18755a3ecbe2c75
3499 F20101118_AABQAZ manganyi_t_Page_196thm.jpg
5c1fe5e63112a297accc56937a186e38
1617469a64040bd506132a5a29cb90f94c4d4298
F20101118_AABRFE manganyi_t_Page_131.tif
daf1f299a218fe747f998a3d878f8000
600c476fa385f78a88b440e3232ee43d5ba2649d
F20101118_AABREQ manganyi_t_Page_106.tif
0f23c7d3bcbbb1f7323ce351472c361c
20a1b354fbfb49a538d3226519cb4f862f271b38
116384 F20101118_AABQZK manganyi_t_Page_048.jp2
00b39cb424535b6a23212729dd88e97f
ccdb1de97d854bfc00f430750b751ff6ecdcbd19
84326 F20101118_AABPVT manganyi_t_Page_129.jpg
c704d4d9aad2433dc1c0748a284d206e
ce3741781d3b5169005510a424abd2019a19780d
122130 F20101118_AABQYV manganyi_t_Page_016.jp2
5c82d56f576f907fc2336a2794140b7b
07d507c006f0a459383e79e1a58a84272814941f
91897 F20101118_AABQCC manganyi_t_Page_024.jpg
5aede3a86d0e7af84e632536c8997999
d1c4e610f79b625738383e5d897dac3c629f238d
71310 F20101118_AABQBO manganyi_t_Page_142.jpg
39c1057f660024a72560114b6135d5eb
c396301e03660c519b1800b14c03f843a9b78354
79922 F20101118_AABPWI manganyi_t_Page_130.jpg
bb7040f093f609717628b91e13da10d2
ee79f39b829b47d3f7ae30ca00f832e0d9c770df
F20101118_AABRFF manganyi_t_Page_133.tif
47ecf220a7fba34302afa5996e56fc70
44976c97a57df754c886d416b65343a72f4f1b6a
F20101118_AABRER manganyi_t_Page_107.tif
83c9c99d7ee85470f5451f2bc78a043b
f82143fff96d801e658f006d598338c0e174446e
119825 F20101118_AABQZL manganyi_t_Page_049.jp2
6ab0bc83e38ed283880b498e7c7048cc
6e31de328bace58c8b9d3897491b3be038b7d45b
26728 F20101118_AABPVU manganyi_t_Page_182.jp2
291a4d524672738a695b5528c32ba544
8a454927d10dd6f3a44b71343a805c6cf95f2ef7
120156 F20101118_AABQYW manganyi_t_Page_017.jp2
1880398fc587ac42721520fc186b6fb8
c8794d99d79fc1be5ca61012db9b9682144c9a67
1786 F20101118_AABQCD manganyi_t_Page_091.txt
54b52ea3c2f66624defef55f67f1fa52
963b3c476b7add23d24b5714abfeb80c97cce7b6
29244 F20101118_AABQBP manganyi_t_Page_177.QC.jpg
98d8d527e936eba98a5a46cc1a44747f
04ab0db30e885edd936ca7a66cc4f237dae07491
1954 F20101118_AABPWJ manganyi_t_Page_058.txt
5ec849186384e27422b0ae03a9f03686
c716fa0e7efd1fceb0f8562482e7aba603898a53
F20101118_AABRFG manganyi_t_Page_135.tif
fe0db4db9e9fc2a29457925886bd28bd
61ef5bccb36ba732b84a0af8a2dc01dc91a7c547
F20101118_AABRES manganyi_t_Page_108.tif
a1ee2d10d82866b35f8e4506408579f6
059fbb6a1ba013b9595b3e9f70ad2b87ecf526fa
117146 F20101118_AABQZM manganyi_t_Page_051.jp2
ceed320ff74bb6421cf4e85e7371d51b
2812399e9ed6798480c2b7bc013aee17ecbb6dcb
114854 F20101118_AABQYX manganyi_t_Page_019.jp2
199bf9da9ac0944a964aff9b72cd18a1
a8fa1c49354f01f68ba14c49384b416282e9b7a3
6862 F20101118_AABPVV manganyi_t_Page_167thm.jpg
754a77ac0ea343e704adef5e9d555832
015f90178a01a4086f053990ea8545c5407aedec
112262 F20101118_AABQCE manganyi_t_Page_038.jp2
1d2ab70f5f3df904c6931eb6ac47cf20
0d1c12fbc304ced4e449788d5a532103b3a95fbd
55954 F20101118_AABQBQ manganyi_t_Page_093.jpg
cb98445cfee5e4c0b11aee8e0f7881d2
e502fbba30908fa943a5f2e29b6b0bcce4caa41d
53137 F20101118_AABPWK manganyi_t_Page_019.pro
1bdc22fcce9ecab3ed9c30df323eb787
78d9eb42d8964263d0b44b6a5e4b5ff463d7518c
F20101118_AABRFH manganyi_t_Page_136.tif
29f535ed5ccfad2bf893fda544b63f1c
c67d51006a418a6ff779a63e6b8b33055ae1475f
F20101118_AABRET manganyi_t_Page_110.tif
1f923cdf3c199a992f5d13f6e70a0017
1d8132b2e73108b1e8e88644adc5843279ed6665
25241 F20101118_AABQZN manganyi_t_Page_055.jp2
55e5ee4b2d9b5f5d9c794bde59cec470
5d8d00518bb8af4d4bc6d913311fd4bccbcade52
120425 F20101118_AABQYY manganyi_t_Page_021.jp2
76081237a9fdb74bb65bd8b2b7ae2b0d
673be5d74a0441ddacde0643c42b51e4a4bd2d7d
98093 F20101118_AABPVW manganyi_t_Page_091.jp2
8d52bd18008f0c1724b1fec3ec8720f5
624408b32e0f371851114876ce80f46e0c52d48f
121476 F20101118_AABQCF manganyi_t_Page_067.jp2
325247843c8c896f68bf0b378e9ee2bc
620af6c6a06376b683ce19f6a33f57d8bdcf325e
27456 F20101118_AABQBR manganyi_t_Page_117.QC.jpg
042e39cf0d3d17f8a6e726b0d99fe6de
ec3187ab644b69f90c2cf17495b7cefcb56e9806
4237 F20101118_AABPWL manganyi_t_Page_002.jpg
3122368aa1331b87bb96b825a202bab7
ff5a708f148532f35842284a0eafd8933635a947
F20101118_AABRFI manganyi_t_Page_138.tif
ed6c056c2363a99c51e437a08f915cb3
c54c24a4777b78fd3eed78526b12998894d8eb40
F20101118_AABREU manganyi_t_Page_111.tif
6b94eb29cbf50ad054180876fa8da405
4ef455a1b4703059ef6bf6499ac328244e0bb6ab
248480 F20101118_AABQZO manganyi_t_Page_057.jp2
ae1c034277ab284e9c5041a410911f16
0826d74f99c35307cfe8a25193bb386702ffa326
116747 F20101118_AABQYZ manganyi_t_Page_022.jp2
aa6cdf720987eaa0792399ca9670b8a5
5db4323c8a8a186a7aacb4093b8dfd249fac7e54
51580 F20101118_AABPVX manganyi_t_Page_068.pro
c1a8c933d876db1ba178bb92db31c0cd
aa8db2da72d351a147501472c77cbf9bee75c115
15075 F20101118_AABQCG manganyi_t_Page_096.QC.jpg
8cfd63cf0ceddf735dcc097112256c03
bcb95e4bac778b9d87c413f99c5c76b3a91d849b
F20101118_AABPXA manganyi_t_Page_160.tif
640475454da18d8117b36dfa60f1027c
d36ac256fd261ca70b5763ecd94f731d25e55a07
2187 F20101118_AABQBS manganyi_t_Page_042.txt
796d82a3d3e83354838ba4239f69fc3d
b1c23e44df99c124de8853f981d54545fa908de0
F20101118_AABPWM manganyi_t_Page_125.tif
fa1d640daf513dd213690c9c10a7a8ad
89553b55487a29ac7438f3dd81ceeb98c439a7b0
F20101118_AABRFJ manganyi_t_Page_141.tif
2ca8d4a15bb944045298ebdf689c874b
fa79802f1cf85d0467cc06f91ada7375f825b077
F20101118_AABREV manganyi_t_Page_116.tif
d41163dea86ce6d9f9dfbd32cc6a20cd
57b4580acd239c6022e1c56d3c214dc1f138ea53
104277 F20101118_AABQZP manganyi_t_Page_058.jp2
95e92690ef80218fc03b8b19c7f12db3
4855813a4e3f8ff78e03bb97942f1be0a185f0ba
28514 F20101118_AABQCH manganyi_t_Page_123.QC.jpg
5e0cc0ba6d5d6543792a50b3f04b7034
f9cc98b67a868db28b0d4b83ad7aca468f09b778
F20101118_AABPXB manganyi_t_Page_049.txt
f00b47d7e51325c1aa379f1751f2b799
286daa40fd89aa6e9285b9f46fd6a30a18a438ce
117889 F20101118_AABQBT manganyi_t_Page_026.jp2
ae9a4871b204013abbdd4f976c92367c
8b378ef91ca6c406b4e8404ae1c82920c88581a6
6744 F20101118_AABPWN manganyi_t_Page_029thm.jpg
d55942308b659a7bbfc8edbbb306174c
4c33629f7f8718890a18470f6f5f9b2d42b9265e
26091 F20101118_AABPVY manganyi_t_Page_135.QC.jpg
827755c84c5242b835a2164480185a4b
2c252e8dc11bf95a512b535ac41b51371d2111e2
F20101118_AABRFK manganyi_t_Page_144.tif
0eecfade3d302c5f838fd38a7a4647ac
60722f8e7e9e3c9dac84b6b160032eecaeb057da
F20101118_AABREW manganyi_t_Page_118.tif
449e56de685226953406d16632d89e8e
f399b770311362523f4ee6c303cea2259b915a0b
116802 F20101118_AABQZQ manganyi_t_Page_060.jp2
6b59fefbe3538d90f71f38cfb79351de
f6eada00d1dc1eb82a68eb80c7b154afa728e693
F20101118_AABQCI manganyi_t_Page_174.tif
877cc63e0413b629029151d2469ec5da
25a5568872f11eae8b7b56caf4d4c6991e68615c
87299 F20101118_AABPXC manganyi_t_Page_124.jpg
7304f6cf2e58bdb20c548870e373a79d
02dd1464454897c0a4d5015f57875e2f3f49a42c
6383 F20101118_AABQBU manganyi_t_Page_039thm.jpg
51d255adf4193fe15b2d8b48d8080abc
c8e5f4d902215912fbae8a0845ef8c41f136b982
107482 F20101118_AABPWO manganyi_t_Page_138.jp2
4769b33b19d108def5298164643ffdff
8bba1f7a5388a184fc5ae285ebdc12c95c720e0c
1051955 F20101118_AABPVZ manganyi_t_Page_187.jp2
8768d715817255a305db56b5257b23f6
03789b1984e5eb0eb06c625b11d203ea78a48373
F20101118_AABRGA manganyi_t_Page_170.tif
1c770f8e989afe585904ad1791ce899e
730c322064a13061ba003243f5c830e42c8fa254
F20101118_AABRFL manganyi_t_Page_145.tif
a3cdb150eb2e5881f86cfa32eb6817a1
23c7c77637a3928fd685d565c4f84fe6042dea09
F20101118_AABREX manganyi_t_Page_119.tif
ce2b00a4a302258c2721c512f154ed9f
e0f6e2505232135c26cc40f4acb4a30b79b657a8
118673 F20101118_AABQZR manganyi_t_Page_063.jp2
8820a8991f851a93037fc0fe3f92faab
7c0589c7ea493d86b5431e744979b4a791788dab
1905 F20101118_AABQCJ manganyi_t_Page_127.txt
8c8d90face8aae62c11f5d7918dba63e
062548d9fbd4e93e07a493a9e140326457176893
115058 F20101118_AABPXD manganyi_t_Page_137.jp2
8acd6f81236085a8e969b670b1b4f227
fdeee28ff12dadcd2b0cb7b0c008b1aa9aa082f0
89702 F20101118_AABQBV manganyi_t_Page_072.jpg
9163f6b85ff4803928f0c4ce02f3dac1
24a808c2fa5ddf2f06fd2fc7cb0a439701f537f2
2170 F20101118_AABPWP manganyi_t_Page_110.txt
9a5c7065fa3e104696723cde7cde5273
2e4dfe2e7c22b8f251d663e012132442b585a21c
F20101118_AABRFM manganyi_t_Page_146.tif
91b58983294e6f2e71ebc4fa02fe4c5f
95e59d750abe5f3eb6fa16ec5a4e74a4457957ab
F20101118_AABREY manganyi_t_Page_120.tif
5704271fe9c266e2cd2bf0165887e83e
a02341a078384b3a67b5b24ac518dbb197690960
117027 F20101118_AABQZS manganyi_t_Page_066.jp2
d532d7f97601b0f8d7d0507e0435b922
63ecadc9edd4aeafcbf41495064d265050197725
24164 F20101118_AABQCK manganyi_t_Page_165.pro
1ad3db079918cd27d1952941de1314dd
fef8d8fb22044f71149873be0aa8b44c75f27ba0
129086 F20101118_AABPXE manganyi_t_Page_170.jp2
8f2f15906421b112379b464a8bf90def
ff3e8b1040906888e4780b7bfe14854e04076649
6598 F20101118_AABQBW manganyi_t_Page_025thm.jpg
a7b6af63d723156764829068cf2806d5
19b834d3d901b65b40a86034ee1ace21d036e69c
95991 F20101118_AABPWQ manganyi_t_Page_008.pro
2230a710c9da876ff7a0c98162855553
0584b7ab928b41a4998a031b0b2872b5b33a5bb3
F20101118_AABRGB manganyi_t_Page_176.tif
9cd08fc0b3222c2ed76b4bbd254fbd75
a192b74ec235538577c77ec449ea9b7723c97248
F20101118_AABRFN manganyi_t_Page_147.tif
d31bdf91f91e1238a312442a43bd0161
c8c457aa81e16f54600168d4fab82f62ee8ce2a1
F20101118_AABREZ manganyi_t_Page_121.tif
b400a0aa3d5cacf09459a3a78b5f16b6
1a687e9ad669b4986042eab098440245042528c0
105332 F20101118_AABQZT manganyi_t_Page_069.jp2
5cee1597d5aeef5fc118e2e5b60d55eb
b0b1022e49c9d9028a2504acd4c1b42334a37c25
27394 F20101118_AABQCL manganyi_t_Page_114.QC.jpg
c977a1a7bf98eed7d82c5230a895f3aa
d0ef4b53fc58bcc487befd51a7c3244253cc758a
51388 F20101118_AABPXF manganyi_t_Page_114.pro
24da2e085ff29490212c255858be6a25
acf0bf2dd06ab2056d6e0a5b3c6dc532cdc97b9a
1972 F20101118_AABQBX manganyi_t_Page_173.txt
457a9763bdf99e0f0e77d4baf90fdf4d
3ae006a67431607e4522be4325086b7123a2c754
2223 F20101118_AABPWR manganyi_t_Page_067.txt
229597be370ea5b1129e9cc51f29716e
43e700a727bb6dc2216f8169c4529ca3a56ee375
F20101118_AABRGC manganyi_t_Page_177.tif
c22ac8f8905e575165773ee23649b1a3
7b6a4cc59759dfb136739b45e2f92bb182187993
F20101118_AABRFO manganyi_t_Page_149.tif
93df2d4c75c6b72b82af010dcbfccea9
8df25f8b6b3cf6efe66166969560ecc6fbc66928
121156 F20101118_AABQZU manganyi_t_Page_070.jp2
c19ff143e704724d19d721335daf7b0c
50582efd838f54145b03216ce1dca9fbdbe0db7c
48631 F20101118_AABQCM manganyi_t_Page_080.pro
94205781deb31308a27ab13d21e12b2b
197f65b84d1de9f3a453cdb3bdadbb7ddb858c2e
21422 F20101118_AABPXG manganyi_t_Page_156.pro
255a555b6487f41ccf81f1f3fe632582
35c3f42aeb109c68d3eef9173c039fa18adc8e45
44674 F20101118_AABQBY manganyi_t_Page_031.pro
1dbe4600eec7642931f6e6f13ae8aa70
4d3cf70573d4e2ae11067fb5f742ecfc16634105
2112 F20101118_AABPWS manganyi_t_Page_052.txt
eec5381934ef9b19bd2511d01b21d07d
e85050a395ab59037aae69783bb89cfda26a1113
28167 F20101118_AABQDA manganyi_t_Page_019.QC.jpg
7f22a9822f038cb814be70aad2a6055f
b0bcc091356ea02688f6ddeb3c2533e927956ca3
F20101118_AABRGD manganyi_t_Page_180.tif
130e9e8a6314e8d85e550bf18668c3f1
6c9930e5c5af1371eaebfcceed8718c3f9dca4fd
F20101118_AABRFP manganyi_t_Page_150.tif
442b1b26ac78bf8f362c31cec1aff424
025326fb7408407093c8bb7eec449a0255edc443
29529 F20101118_AABQCN manganyi_t_Page_193.QC.jpg
4ea7d31039d5d5b341f09b0b62bb9be3
4dd76021b8dd4eba7c2d9cc3906f99782629da51
633507 F20101118_AABPXH manganyi_t_Page_032.jp2
85aabd2b9700b119847a6acde3a5fb05
bc9dd4b62747727fcd850cc4a200dc79e56ddd76
6052 F20101118_AABQBZ manganyi_t_Page_133thm.jpg
037131a6b7538ed448f505e797a209cd
5c50ed25fc1ffa07cfb6824d458273d8e3a69a47
115116 F20101118_AABQDB manganyi_t_Page_018.jp2
6a367ff7b7df3eb797cd969fa335b9af
077163f73e76aac85a872d0b0593a8f5c7976dcb
F20101118_AABRGE manganyi_t_Page_181.tif
e7f7b945d359a39c59e2ce8989e52421
6a8105697687d3398a940781cd0251b0dd4f7350
F20101118_AABRFQ manganyi_t_Page_152.tif
1a1eb99c904bd40c4f934a62e173172b
c538601eba02fbe7471a0e87141136c6618e9e68
110526 F20101118_AABQZV manganyi_t_Page_071.jp2
8361fb50ab29b36356c61cdd6686b96d
55c58e98a293e9e5107429a438455ae2b9735ccc
13752 F20101118_AABQCO manganyi_t_Page_152.QC.jpg
7ddfc88b6512ffd8aee578b509d6ee7d
b9bffa501e1b3f4625708d3249a05b8873d4aa14
28102 F20101118_AABPXI manganyi_t_Page_187.QC.jpg
c343aa64f6020a4af0e492cb2d339346
221f74db3c01256dab258024dd2b061b7b274fa9
F20101118_AABPWT manganyi_t_Page_175.tif
fe6f4a70501dc3f4e8ea49c51b10fa04
0fe5e6fd893605e8da152232c4b600e79a409cf9
4922 F20101118_AABQDC manganyi_t_Page_166thm.jpg
d0cfb1d2f6407483da15b9f4bc7fd67e
5fe7aca93425ca91bee85d03cf185f23b679b9d4
F20101118_AABRGF manganyi_t_Page_183.tif
d62c619c9ea108d7e21cc6cc3392f76d
eb0d0cd45aac898e3c25f005ada1252497c681be
F20101118_AABRFR manganyi_t_Page_153.tif
917fa81394397aea33f6ddc45e515be4
1316fdcb90507c735311e6d64d9e726614cb3791
122240 F20101118_AABQZW manganyi_t_Page_073.jp2
7399095c1fb88c35456e767f6e17771b
bd5edd946179c65b0bceb1a4a8104472ca0e7fda
F20101118_AABQCP manganyi_t_Page_072.tif
8b1470b77ddf687b81aab86b366e495e
335e715e9c2630d9b2348ab8aae6676fc2a4f213
1444 F20101118_AABPXJ manganyi_t_Page_101.txt
261b2263d1b2771c89ca32d3ed0d256c
4ffbdf6a8adef625c545e30235d1e846296af131
113173 F20101118_AABPWU manganyi_t_Page_004.jp2
9191c36274c8110449eddfa8d0f9cc1b
3b503b1fe1ffcef31644e9ea27f4937b184123ab
30010 F20101118_AABQDD manganyi_t_Page_194.QC.jpg
9a55ba7db68b4ee36d18ac87f29087e5
baf40e37b734391dca31c751cffc57bd5901cd9d
F20101118_AABRGG manganyi_t_Page_184.tif
b759f50c73e763e73f7ee49b99c64d66
7df0d58b5741d02cd2baa1c8460a964f1ad61985
F20101118_AABRFS manganyi_t_Page_154.tif
b56d4bed8fa5d1b9bd762314eb6e250a
6d405658ad22ef5e525fe1974392db0b2ccd0dbf
94083 F20101118_AABQZX manganyi_t_Page_074.jp2
cbc91fbbdef83fb5b73e6be27f58d0f7
28cb919705b643e2efe878f9be7eea2a3913cce9
29109 F20101118_AABQCQ manganyi_t_Page_024.QC.jpg
ef7717b2bf1cbace846acc484dcd5116
801c9c9bff8f9361b7fc142d2df5c92238a82160
77109 F20101118_AABPXK manganyi_t_Page_163.jp2
ef6b277008f889bbdf1c624656842f97
22bc0788b28eba30ec9d3e4bb8b6b67c1511c34c
F20101118_AABPWV manganyi_t_Page_038.tif
856bec6f632d0ac2089f7eafff6543d1
3759c67aafa00a58d45f0b43bd00be4344664e6c
6873 F20101118_AABQDE manganyi_t_Page_021thm.jpg
ad7262d524cb500f9fea4f5ef2121ee9
213c4361072bc875b05076abbf52219f97eccfae
F20101118_AABRGH manganyi_t_Page_185.tif
2ebc4114ee225052961c1a2f4a8e8617
ad4c376e242b06bb821bcfb431caf7360b13621f
F20101118_AABRFT manganyi_t_Page_156.tif
2929a4e0e2b22507fc55c6ea894a9037
3d6a35c7d7e2c3547dc139078fac2c34a017c729
86282 F20101118_AABQZY manganyi_t_Page_075.jp2
56824425968e5d302512facf3db89f02
237ef747e1a91ae75a21c73d00847840efe88def
6146 F20101118_AABQCR manganyi_t_Page_080thm.jpg
2988c5dec0b0c6eb73bdb0c7fbd45a52
776be6ebd9ac403b11a50b24ad9c896ca1d6090d
93588 F20101118_AABPXL manganyi_t_Page_016.jpg
3be7cf875dc766c3032c3977650764a3
18fd9174efbc4e356a51e9abe800ec4718014d23
F20101118_AABPWW manganyi_t_Page_053.tif
810943145971683c8e6745e35cf54002
a40a62fc0caef6a907cc88e03afbb78254395f5f
126734 F20101118_AABQDF manganyi_t_Page_154.jp2
371b1e1a3dac8e547e251375c0f9b122
d961908629a430512a5e7a7d06eb6ce538133afe
F20101118_AABRGI manganyi_t_Page_187.tif
5f296aabefc86d88fa3ffb87e65f017f
0ee718ecbeabfa30342e839470f91e5a68d6d42f
F20101118_AABRFU manganyi_t_Page_161.tif
87d09e997a67c210f53ebd9020a28161
279d1e83f8a7efa8f32e49e1475b47f62b5857ff
110645 F20101118_AABQZZ manganyi_t_Page_076.jp2
036075aac0d7cbfc1e1a5e32a7705e46
6f48f7e7531ab506ee0d2a3409f6e60512991dd1
53065 F20101118_AABQCS manganyi_t_Page_018.pro
c754bc55806c8ddceaa0a90579115307
dd2b65356776eaa789675b010be7e59d53b9f35e
53783 F20101118_AABPXM manganyi_t_Page_060.pro
c2455f54a0cc7f9f10a2d679858e0130
f837e7335a5b27d825b0170e324bb7396e1e115f
2214 F20101118_AABPWX manganyi_t_Page_175.txt
f44988231f6914a00739945626d9a195
c9ab048c899370f38ea63947c50c0824e6f5e1af
6164 F20101118_AABQDG manganyi_t_Page_069thm.jpg
03c115d404d841b5c4d6838aee6bd246
ee91956c26f08ae94e61eec71314a9fe9855d9f1
78407 F20101118_AABPYA manganyi_t_Page_091.jpg
61b64a5d657d49289ad0fad1bca4c144
b1f6db80cd1a82b69972cdbb0673bf06b5fd8b1b
F20101118_AABRGJ manganyi_t_Page_188.tif
08fdebefbec5d52f267182e78ae34cc4
e06879e223281efe21cb9732350eb767637cebe0
F20101118_AABRFV manganyi_t_Page_163.tif
fa65a931ab16e3259ad0892310016f3b
20fe0a1d9504c7aa1b4127a19006ca5265e1455a
2077 F20101118_AABQCT manganyi_t_Page_092.txt
b5408fe84db1fd0aa49bade3115f04ee
2a4238fb36f1a3ed89c94e413414d7d844dba470
25544 F20101118_AABPXN manganyi_t_Page_005.QC.jpg
3712ee46c3e3c14e2b9cbf7a2e1e3efa
1725052077ae156bd9a7727219761bea692c071f
1058 F20101118_AABPWY manganyi_t_Page_099.txt
35015492b8ac777354c6b938914ef9c1
8f0acfa83f1e483de0009ed68e5d61ab8928a289
F20101118_AABQDH manganyi_t_Page_081.tif
c606443dc76645c129475b788cde0422
57d321298b0ddf937a0e66ec0a3cd1903d771f86
17209 F20101118_AABPYB manganyi_t_Page_011.QC.jpg
7286aadd086fb3de27ad517632502af0
83ce606434b6b69faa4e83d9ab50dea12c70b2e6
F20101118_AABRGK manganyi_t_Page_189.tif
67f5f3fdedf3479d1ee5250f1348f6b5
807961bc6602e6ea4670e5ba7e0bed6713d37ccc
F20101118_AABRFW manganyi_t_Page_164.tif
0222d8e5710b4db2f2be495ef1ad41c8
731ccbc2c22112b23a49cd44db997fedc3ec794e
F20101118_AABQCU manganyi_t_Page_172.tif
9912b283cc94ccc2d86449f09e717724
d71f2857d81788e3cdb01e35568672d2c429d39a
6023 F20101118_AABPXO manganyi_t_Page_138thm.jpg
555986c8cece3b657b1a045c0efd7caf
f005468522042765b3df07e825423a57b08f6fa9
56780 F20101118_AABPWZ manganyi_t_Page_161.jp2
eb0e22f9957c5199ca31737bac4396bd
85359a3d50477e1de0485f77d89a617c51e5d216
F20101118_AABQDI manganyi_t_Page_091.tif
699579b27f3663158e29f15fddf1d7eb
9022ce0abc89d76d93f1926ef553bbc229463152
29196 F20101118_AABPYC manganyi_t_Page_150.pro
efe07a6a5cbfb27d12bf2effb4eb8336
f90844451175ac284acc325f357f8d2ca17d97bb
53387 F20101118_AABRHA manganyi_t_Page_025.pro
5e962e3c70650dcdf24cfda27ad084a8
34f415c6ba8e7f4143635dc5a34fce511e20e1a6
F20101118_AABRGL manganyi_t_Page_192.tif
14449ba8c29005ff51ba218c82b35de5
692add0cf84de23aea3df1ce26fb86864c128a9a
F20101118_AABRFX manganyi_t_Page_165.tif
a925e3448eb153f5be1db9117711422f
a84bd5487adbf16608353468ada7e509c5dd388e
75021 F20101118_AABQCV manganyi_t_Page_083.jpg
53fe539295389ef5efae59f3a04bd02b
3b0402af423ff1e7965acaadf9af9be82e426e43
87203 F20101118_AABPXP manganyi_t_Page_121.jpg
4bd91be8d4512c133fad795092fc965e
6f0b2256263011da68cecd1fda059e98bae1b0a4
F20101118_AABQDJ manganyi_t_Page_093.tif
3fedef6da4bc7caecb88030438676c76
83a2341ffb27ced66adb3ea9946161d1d851fd89
2086 F20101118_AABPYD manganyi_t_Page_090.txt
8a96a06ef474b68ad6f82e4d8bd49e64
7b997d8175ebeb7a2db1ed2b9999779fdaec8c6c
51151 F20101118_AABRHB manganyi_t_Page_027.pro
9d7cc23999d2b0f5f25bd9545be59948
290519932b4aa4ccf64d500985effc5c4afe963f
F20101118_AABRGM manganyi_t_Page_195.tif
cc91909029538f8673be39f9fdec59cf
54ab38abbda30fcff1714884b80aa1e45d7de20e
F20101118_AABRFY manganyi_t_Page_166.tif
c1b70b0395287bc284e386c115bb446a
eaff4a650defcd16474c22e68c9c07684a891a64
6913 F20101118_AABPXQ manganyi_t_Page_111thm.jpg
8f943beedc8bffa6eb65fbd4fcde3b63
8eb49469b75187e9054fcfb88b9ec13d004f3020
112099 F20101118_AABQDK manganyi_t_Page_135.jp2
85b1f03b70ffc83bfbc69a93387bb2b1
7813673e3b8de2beed9162e548e800d72bce30d3
116241 F20101118_AABPYE manganyi_t_Page_052.jp2
76e5334d1b43def37435dd140807f606
0b7b9841434776495bbe4efaf7189eefa8c848e7
70823 F20101118_AABQCW manganyi_t_Page_074.jpg
89aee08466bf17dc3f2162b2cfd06890
1866934cbf4607e36c93a2be367176341e6de911
F20101118_AABRGN manganyi_t_Page_196.tif
9cb58c82e2f8bb17748b26931cdd924d
2e64a0b5d44129f1813d7915476a94e160b0f6f1
F20101118_AABRFZ manganyi_t_Page_167.tif
2353db91868868f6e124cb8859dc089a
9a47f645ee2f26992550de86013c10cf42e97a4b
F20101118_AABPXR manganyi_t_Page_022.tif
d73cd141c3e8c51be5f5e6a475670077
c95453f01dc0b27df34ad27efa67fb1b0f7a9414
42976 F20101118_AABQDL manganyi_t_Page_146.jpg
c4b22d9ff1a608d028c0b79d6cea595e
dc4bd9085c81518d659e1792973c8120f9fc5421
50765 F20101118_AABPYF manganyi_t_Page_071.pro
37bee9a81ea722c0f04cf3bc6093d7c7
a04b93398d8bd9f286f8175942ca9dee2935daa9
55971 F20101118_AABQCX manganyi_t_Page_111.pro
63ae8a08c1e0f2acea6f05b34b6a5420
848af0430bc6e5a9b8d8735a2b553fd03c80f741
51051 F20101118_AABRHC manganyi_t_Page_030.pro
d1728dd31cb5dbd84b88cdcdf173a91a
8fe548070cc8dbc674bbe983a4c45a48f504a522
1118 F20101118_AABRGO manganyi_t_Page_002.pro
890337e9ee8de157a4f751131412b8e1
97d5f7289cd60eb633db808f4b94ec196be3fcdf
97321 F20101118_AABPXS manganyi_t_Page_082.jpg
2e8ac800dc0efae73a62fddd6ce84958
1d118beef5cde1ed112fb07839be591cc9c438bd
53522 F20101118_AABQEA manganyi_t_Page_108.pro
35560ccfd61ed5349b9548a026953144
5cd8c0ab5d051ebe9aebcf34d2c03dc3df3bb9ef
27007 F20101118_AABQDM manganyi_t_Page_106.QC.jpg
776eb637a3117d539c814cfe421466cd
9ecf454f121a1d5a211436ccd2da681c5fe202bf
46886 F20101118_AABPYG manganyi_t_Page_148.jpg
8000ae80e1c9fcb33cbb7a7f9ed08249
9f625504cd340bd6f4a64d6594ef6f8eec4d0106
6353 F20101118_AABQCY manganyi_t_Page_121thm.jpg
aaf1fd2c5d6dfcc6f47916866b9929ba
b3e11b4f624079174de2f91b5402da5f9a0f6010
50993 F20101118_AABRHD manganyi_t_Page_038.pro
35cf26efccee5e4d0e8eda32bb09c828
db95c470016a51fe2658221acd20198ad0f3e702
2496 F20101118_AABRGP manganyi_t_Page_003.pro
1ecba4b9e98ada70ad695f53c4206c62
df6214a64b2b2e6ffe4fbd91da44113791cee12c
353 F20101118_AABPXT manganyi_t_Page_140.txt
ad514dc9cc0d5b7c9ed7ea864b61baa0
9cef4d0332470d4a175702153e05dd9e71c96803
29382 F20101118_AABQEB manganyi_t_Page_120.QC.jpg
8059caf30f460d7c2c203575d8894634
b0293c41e65967d504130a0fca53b9550af6ad12
19328 F20101118_AABQDN manganyi_t_Page_075.QC.jpg
04d3731c6e4ab2bf4b607087ec3888a6
2b2fa0759d1aa46714d1c633ce39be08ab700a14
F20101118_AABPYH manganyi_t_Page_060.tif
18708afb44b19588fbec0e4e407223e7
028e9c6865357998d2de55dc8258932eab8c9f9d
1696 F20101118_AABQCZ manganyi_t_Page_098.txt
1edad8c3a19788d123ac5a93c5490c47
f9159e1f9125b29700aded4bbf66501e90ef2e93
56629 F20101118_AABRHE manganyi_t_Page_040.pro
99db7ece706abcda21c72de4a5d40d21
21e077f3c954d3b73496553e8f5309cea24c171b
49641 F20101118_AABRGQ manganyi_t_Page_005.pro
fee6208f97f2cbd222cc75635d862193
137aaf176c6bb23397445246260a1606e35dc70c
89503 F20101118_AABQEC manganyi_t_Page_113.jpg
badfc0c1733ae7583a6e12b536d27f5e
547193bb798cd475f4b29b7c49de8682493af58a
6600 F20101118_AABQDO manganyi_t_Page_045thm.jpg
1f074b6f35a7811df7e8a814f73e6592
bc6687e87e44e6dbfca26402c1569f796c6fe28c
102498 F20101118_AABPYI manganyi_t_Page_170.jpg
7665d3476f60cdaca41d52252125c435
84edf3ae34912b35345d9f98834ed138892fbaca
52251 F20101118_AABRHF manganyi_t_Page_041.pro
e36db46f03e692947c0af378d4b8f1f6
921faad9ad64494f41d74d3cdfbef7e7e42d0e71
6726 F20101118_AABRGR manganyi_t_Page_006.pro
8d22c25f689a7cd376ca7225a0de1ec0
38d67927cd4a2b91af299818aba1e9f4e884963c
111641 F20101118_AABPXU manganyi_t_Page_027.jp2
cab1947ddafbd8d227a9586d6a6cb5f4
b755393ed36b3f63d4079ecef90b1b09e22eae4b
53549 F20101118_AABQED manganyi_t_Page_123.pro
fd392bca5adec9f1fa83ac28b31f0f86
6fd2aca8e70a002c96a18d761b3847a1bac52eae
17613 F20101118_AABQDP manganyi_t_Page_166.QC.jpg
228a6211d4644d394b236a04df03fbfd
359a4cf864ee24f6060939c77ad36ed0a43082b4
721 F20101118_AABPYJ manganyi_t_Page_003thm.jpg
f5335ee209344a1b8875dddb2eeaf0d0
ebd4a9b67c46b2dd0f089642f9c843e9856d3c37
55712 F20101118_AABRHG manganyi_t_Page_042.pro
7f932bf1fbc20a64a046895113c29080
0fc4bcde86f08ea1cd3c6f42c0ceca56a5fc9286
72422 F20101118_AABRGS manganyi_t_Page_007.pro
7251ad69f4a31422480037a934c7b006
62d48b1c1ef386ce4e7a356b1aaeb9606190198a
52602 F20101118_AABPXV manganyi_t_Page_135.pro
3ef0a122129a53631ad9939c8f166b95
84ede0e16799d31718647ca2a3ce6e44c3573fce
41139 F20101118_AABQEE manganyi_t_Page_103.jp2
07aada01160c1441ab2ffb7ad2da4c75
416e640cd16e9427eb85a400a798b9936a49d0c9
6471 F20101118_AABQDQ manganyi_t_Page_062thm.jpg
552b8a93bddd5978a30aa979055f3ab9
97e56279212a5c08d2e4f2d4b27c35b4c62159e6
52870 F20101118_AABPYK manganyi_t_Page_034.pro
47cdbf94a7d5bbf9a3f8ed24866ca9fd
4488216564981893d33365046d265d6f7a6d35e1
54928 F20101118_AABRHH manganyi_t_Page_043.pro
c72ac1060624c6c5915ee05d2937150b
f3daa2b5ba54f8d71e3fcf76eb4c280d434c06a0
58678 F20101118_AABRGT manganyi_t_Page_009.pro
47fbff6f0feea166b7b6b0a5c26718b1
ecaf069a3ccf327aba570adee029b045aeb9f9e8
29720 F20101118_AABPXW manganyi_t_Page_073.QC.jpg
b0516256fae72cabb4e8e35eba02ddb7
3836bd7aeafd7e5b7229dbbf069ff6dca493ebd4
6001 F20101118_AABQEF manganyi_t_Page_059thm.jpg
96c35406c496ef69ba238d144058b7ac
49fa52a0b4e2d9bde562fe5c4cd8408a443a2212
2088 F20101118_AABQDR manganyi_t_Page_117.txt
3e12fbbac1587ab1e17a466d13f66f2e
c3fe2fe813d6227f19ff3d8561c709e34cbaabec
2158 F20101118_AABPYL manganyi_t_Page_177.txt
2ef30dd332a71489e69b95d84e296f2f
46fc6aa5f545abf7637acc9d6e0e674e35e7541d
53804 F20101118_AABRHI manganyi_t_Page_045.pro
a80889bc02682e2adc8914be099ae306
761dcbd4bef9a36aaaae3cf4c668fb84de05513c
38545 F20101118_AABRGU manganyi_t_Page_011.pro
d8d67f664779d9918e6d5bd74bff1a40
22ae28ee19b1141d3f33be0fa35ba5b55517bb03
1947 F20101118_AABPXX manganyi_t_Page_133.txt
b45bca691dd9c417a2e9a4cb9cd1e7c0
fd72dc77363bf3da5efb7d67141629359c54b6da
25884 F20101118_AABQEG manganyi_t_Page_027.QC.jpg
a30428a8a57788597d98867b14cbacbb
bd6449025c234e482f39cbc3779bda5093752d1f
F20101118_AABPZA manganyi_t_Page_065.tif
cffb0df4ddb3140da20630daf6f0bac8
a4a3c0f4d4f743910038ab07bc61a1a3f4151cd4
2612 F20101118_AABQDS manganyi_t_Page_186.txt
457464f88bb0079db316ce784a6cc9d9
58e20faed4c4c9281fa9751ca29453e10307f1a9
64584 F20101118_AABPYM manganyi_t_Page_186.pro
d8a9f8907e176443f7ddc1869095ae7d
0288e4622941a64dde941dc462dab8e3f6cc0a51
56328 F20101118_AABRHJ manganyi_t_Page_046.pro
fae89d846d9687d48d005866a33b501d
85164aa5fce3d5ac36c7bf64bc65529bbeda9dac
41685 F20101118_AABRGV manganyi_t_Page_013.pro
abbb58afac04e6c3c195302b3a057092
e5af9864c08ea83eccfb57a3c06fdd5ec4b3808f
52257 F20101118_AABPXY manganyi_t_Page_039.pro
1fdc63c36a1ba5f09fc31b3218e62d74
ee70b3ffe9431bba6c6569fb5e07b3984b2aec67
28209 F20101118_AABQEH manganyi_t_Page_111.QC.jpg
36a2585290306410827ef126a218fe96
e837d692611231ab414a8afc5af9c214cecf2454
2137 F20101118_AABPZB manganyi_t_Page_119.txt
3ab34bda71604ebc0e139e9291bc0b00
c28e29cc54268bd995f289d69b56338f2f179157
62908 F20101118_AABQDT manganyi_t_Page_096.jp2
ab8583a2e663552a0d86b7eb40d50ac2
b627aab132c14364e8318eb4a46df053c183681f
F20101118_AABPYN manganyi_t_Page_002.tif
cfbdae769832a4f1959f41a2abcd9562
ad8c26a0d58caa8c4ff68d8da9804aeba0c6c267
53242 F20101118_AABRHK manganyi_t_Page_048.pro
887faf419b70b67439bf65b8a5f6db57
6d7c41da513052e2439d7a6b0b95afdcda1120ab
55549 F20101118_AABRGW manganyi_t_Page_017.pro
56f624317d1eff36ee5cd48d622b68f3
5ea5b24cfe0023226413481a9585b29e27c7c343
87510 F20101118_AABPXZ manganyi_t_Page_050.jpg
202c3f9088f7e6d4e90d44f93b2df0b2
d7cf706d60cc22217301005feaaa8d2e9311fa6c
F20101118_AABQEI manganyi_t_Page_112.tif
3927e3df67b522ca14c7afab9dc05db1
632a622cef2876fba59e0834891a7b3eb8333697
F20101118_AABPZC manganyi_t_Page_113.tif
df2b335b1209198c448ee7175316326a
5b6ba773e596cc546afe82ecd84ef817b8e694ed
25479 F20101118_AABQDU manganyi_t_Page_028.QC.jpg
1a10b33f1d7e38474e1938c7a7affc33
61098af870f23515f5b53c578397306fca64ae25
53477 F20101118_AABPYO manganyi_t_Page_052.pro
8c342e1bdb83d01f5fc482627665f366
e47ffc867ed7fd59e3bdf60416e7888faf0b771f
38997 F20101118_AABRIA manganyi_t_Page_075.pro
a63f8242c358f7a828a163231b64d2cb
58eb7597e53ae57b45654901b1fb6ddc57ecf71e
55591 F20101118_AABRHL manganyi_t_Page_049.pro
540446d10d320a661b3c24aceabc2472
fac1208f7cd6bd6f5744546b668da36be871dcaa
52300 F20101118_AABRGX manganyi_t_Page_022.pro
2a0f77d90a256b4ebe1133a2df662bb9
17aa708564d96d561e9a6b63cb3d7215ccba350b
F20101118_AABQEJ manganyi_t_Page_071.tif
6287fefe9a091cb94c6f811722f41c2e
f9b3a6dc4facfd763717bde1a58b92423754cb8e
F20101118_AABPZD manganyi_t_Page_117.tif
5391337f556742c0e140497c00ccc21b
f21ede2e705aa21632006ea9068a31879be12983
1896 F20101118_AABQDV manganyi_t_Page_069.txt
3fb9c83d22db161bba69943496e3c184
ae648d80c21d5b43b44523af4a9334d7b6ccc22e
28192 F20101118_AABPYP manganyi_t_Page_037.QC.jpg
0a1fa546f6034e3c0a682179c06946d7
90092a0e4f4a777c89b41570389f4db1ebd7a888
37588 F20101118_AABRIB manganyi_t_Page_077.pro
e43ab7b88969f1a2f8c581b425b6ecda
59b8585980f71dedf6b7d5439fc83f250cc74eca
53039 F20101118_AABRHM manganyi_t_Page_050.pro
9b47cde4ef48285983bc3319cf727d69
5de51a2b1440cad8a94592e1822b75d30969e1db
52872 F20101118_AABRGY manganyi_t_Page_023.pro
bcffb2678b3f590dca640d2fa653f2a3
a4af29632f5b936520c1d1a85e78c3c1fe75e11f
2076 F20101118_AABQEK manganyi_t_Page_121.txt
e8ca29acc710edb9ffd411fd624934c5
9dec79cc2fae5df9cf218a0378d4105830cb2b75
111407 F20101118_AABPZE manganyi_t_Page_088.jp2
7e835f7198bdf03b5a4198503aea6381
73061d125d4682c9b51d0a7bac1e0a664ea185f8
27112 F20101118_AABQDW manganyi_t_Page_121.QC.jpg
92d5a7886091dd72021260793069454d
7cdba48c906cf5fcb5addb5d178ed21b47921533
107077 F20101118_AABPYQ manganyi_t_Page_169.jp2
12b67a14963e4eebf40a6a0d2cc771da
87e2ebc67328fd1d814fd585e963bc77c82b0121
2119 F20101118_AABRIC manganyi_t_Page_078.pro
7e1fe5a1d9b05d807de079c8797dac60
87126b3e7e103a0321357225fa8accf6c322306d
54558 F20101118_AABRHN manganyi_t_Page_053.pro
d0134444423752b2535de9eb8a7b2fb2
ba8f8a41354885d24d724fc9fa5b1b336b4cbfb9
55896 F20101118_AABRGZ manganyi_t_Page_024.pro
5f9229b8ca8015266d19d191aee324b6
688066f3eeea7a783dce23d49e2940864d6fd9ac
27237 F20101118_AABQEL manganyi_t_Page_087.QC.jpg
ba2b91f7dcc14ea24fd80b6fd329f797
f1172c88d936afaf6b9f3fc92573c991b50236d2
F20101118_AABPZF manganyi_t_Page_031.tif
a67ffd9bb78f0b94f8c38c002c41db04
f4389f7b885ccaf61279e322e90e7696647127df
26649 F20101118_AABQDX manganyi_t_Page_149.pro
c6d7bee976392da12a6bc74fdb1afd76
5412da4b3173c2d287f82e856635fffdc8bbe3bc
27022 F20101118_AABPYR manganyi_t_Page_041.QC.jpg
4b1f94ea8f5d8f73f451e8bc4206237c
27e2fc80925c3cc5bd6cd0950012c1b5dc9b3ef9
52480 F20101118_AABQFA manganyi_t_Page_124.pro
81487ae883f05f75e97768e54cecc864
f336ebbde0f096f18f12d093aa5fa4929ca3123c
52347 F20101118_AABRHO manganyi_t_Page_054.pro
baf2a46838bdd303590dae449757d108
97f9607a0abbe749129483766c7c978fa02a1f61
1097 F20101118_AABQEM manganyi_t_Page_165.txt
c486f575afec3554a790c79e074bfe5f
681b0fec6c80ddc3ae3e49e86ff1936ee6434abf
126387 F20101118_AABPZG manganyi_t_Page_082.jp2
908af3b34eeb803fa7f8f0a649e6cc73
8a9dab2cfe3e4577103a59e1a46888bf86823010
9860 F20101118_AABQDY manganyi_t_Page_055.pro
44dc83118735cb55e9a892fa4f3b652d
a25ff5066a40d265bdab98d98a68aeb2261bdddc
6515 F20101118_AABPYS manganyi_t_Page_027thm.jpg
901f7dce9e284eac12281f0a5cc9917d
50ffe6515b0590178ebcc55cff0d876eee8b4777
58724 F20101118_AABRID manganyi_t_Page_082.pro
e7d5c9ab529398130dce4ca75083a588
a1cb7b1c180a8c5945e5c983a76df6ab5e3cbc9d
23820 F20101118_AABRHP manganyi_t_Page_056.pro
faf7b82e874abbb6200a79f991e4ec1e
771fcb6a862efb5daa9ab95094190f62bb9c7deb
2189 F20101118_AABQEN manganyi_t_Page_172.txt
e532e0d1be161fb3747477d911e60a7f
ef24e7aec4c67d25be5592b6f9886dfd73774918
2110 F20101118_AABPZH manganyi_t_Page_025.txt
c0e8f47f9e43f7a25ae908aa8d9c4d35
11abe2ea0efbfc901783c4e241bf8ed41ef9ad85
18612 F20101118_AABQDZ manganyi_t_Page_077.QC.jpg
a4769047053356718bf1267349955a48
09c2e3f3c8ab8478f09703c2c034653a02207732
F20101118_AABPYT manganyi_t_Page_020.txt
9cb1e2812224af7edb5dec6e163b3073
687e26e9ddfcc74185940fb65be23277c1d38a6e
51477 F20101118_AABQFB manganyi_t_Page_061.pro
f40fc9f48fecb061296bd6ac8d72e695
38815d2a7148b8c268fc3dc4b8bdc112b2aceafd
44125 F20101118_AABRIE manganyi_t_Page_083.pro
d3ad0c4c09d01ab3f489335b0cb369c9
574a0692fdd00ac3394de998c8528e3b6bf6ea83
49832 F20101118_AABRHQ manganyi_t_Page_059.pro
0147c19ba94c21f9c4cdd3590a6f3898
bb0383a92411937a97739753495f1f5440e583d0
13421 F20101118_AABQEO manganyi_t_Page_099.QC.jpg
0cb4f6558641aa8a550bf08987b9ca8a
db708dd9b8a08b5ab157e8b6e73a46b75222e0d5
28491 F20101118_AABPZI manganyi_t_Page_125.QC.jpg
a81d063427a314be3056dc65827f3a21
b0d0b9a254dc60d19d24c9a518325ec99a9c517b
24663 F20101118_AABPYU manganyi_t_Page_069.QC.jpg
6ef1e1a925c13f1432454a0ffd315e5a
134646f424da3464c7e15469632bc625844cf080
89555 F20101118_AABQFC manganyi_t_Page_108.jpg
bd40919be07d2c6dbc0349f95a116701
3c55de57fa00cbfb2a93542548c2051b0844d3cd
55706 F20101118_AABRIF manganyi_t_Page_084.pro
262c97b9a10a69cc29a21683f5110687
de7edcc6631aa7ca1636ee4e1d7d1ce8398b12ae
53582 F20101118_AABRHR manganyi_t_Page_062.pro
35952e7751ce3fc026d937e66347e366
c36d04e1bf0d475caa892e6c0897ff24d619df79
11780 F20101118_AABQEP manganyi_t_Page_195.jp2
e553d754df7364e5aeb1f84c6cb69e50
fb902b1838e4848c88796c5e48170131b294948b
29144 F20101118_AABPZJ manganyi_t_Page_017.QC.jpg
6c4f93ce813f4bd7c8f5751ff230dd8c
3d122bc5739f2d61d27b15dd1817d27fd203c162
52002 F20101118_AABQFD manganyi_t_Page_047.pro
923a72b3da6a4a7b9182e24fd3d1e132
26e5c644a9185783ac4eaadc71251b9f2af69e16
51215 F20101118_AABRIG manganyi_t_Page_085.pro
543801fa9d57ca07c243d3ca2b05cb9e
43400bad8f06b5c4501382993cac1914ad390159
55193 F20101118_AABRHS manganyi_t_Page_063.pro
9651881db83854a8e35071a70bedf9a9
9179d07b79bb67ba058b021f84ca0a74e477540e
112823 F20101118_AABQEQ manganyi_t_Page_085.jp2
8f91c15f0fa54eefbab4778debda131f
0a6357a699b8b97fac14486a162ae5c75ee71b4e
90122 F20101118_AABPZK manganyi_t_Page_045.jpg
93f2930a2c7d30f6a87a6a1d8a280cae
6e8d393abac22b58b81ac5ea420114765485ba13
80397 F20101118_AABPYV manganyi_t_Page_138.jpg
07b0fcfb3e7cdba641ccaaefe55a2bb2
157acb7eae4519da1ae81682bcac09c23bff68ec
4378 F20101118_AABQFE manganyi_t_Page_161thm.jpg
89fc5ec75c86256c0de46db04b65fa64
07e842de4bdee4675c3a3a9b0d98b8c82653e63a
54172 F20101118_AABRIH manganyi_t_Page_087.pro
27a3c0b9a7b3527a63fa9fae2e6d7bc2
c90670912cc4d7f54dcf850607f3e0f276ddffa9
52675 F20101118_AABRHT manganyi_t_Page_064.pro
ad4b375b3a9d3ddb94418d19373ed0c5
d44b5def748d265796ef36cd5e3a858f2ca99b95
28701 F20101118_AABQER manganyi_t_Page_110.QC.jpg
0ec707f76936ae64629a780d30b1aa79
6b8be7dd4b7cf30ba304f59108b050d3e259bb29
2508 F20101118_AABPZL manganyi_t_Page_191.txt
638735e29126b52b8e6a951252a4aeac
889ea6a35a49706a11d6f05b98dac220d9051ec9
2933 F20101118_AABPYW manganyi_t_Page_097thm.jpg
30c8fed6e5ca4f54ef75855316b55d26
e5ea4fc4f265713367b0626e846c25a9fdcffc71
32066 F20101118_AABQFF manganyi_t_Page_079.jpg
c4373e0e54e1fb991e6a446e4e99e63a
aede6271eea935640e075280afc598e87ab7d3b5
53038 F20101118_AABRII manganyi_t_Page_090.pro
f13d8f634ad654c4aaa4c3b302e16ac8
12199f792086b02a6a9d4d59cc40038d49a4c168
53232 F20101118_AABRHU manganyi_t_Page_065.pro
bc1aa3b2f9d1e91589e566d62982c587
0d38bf2bfb49e34f0dd9fdb93ec4ee1384dc9fec
2123 F20101118_AABQES manganyi_t_Page_167.txt
0c430441083ab378960d4f28606fdb60
2740db0ce65a08e6848ee8b048384732940f1717
3805 F20101118_AABPZM manganyi_t_Page_156thm.jpg
9e2ff61a5d2dcf2b3299758467a397df
ed4853bc36b0fac45ac457f89307de21c66523cd
F20101118_AABPYX manganyi_t_Page_168.tif
ad00b0ebaf6abf3225975dda80f95197
ab58fec255567d1cef3bf6506a8f4db12b03e642
6098 F20101118_AABQFG manganyi_t_Page_129thm.jpg
5dbf3a1c812c3b495b35aa8bc2383c78
08db9ef1ddf741b8a7b345bf0508667482dceaba
44651 F20101118_AABRIJ manganyi_t_Page_091.pro
e92d32fe2e993ccd3540af28e5a253f2
e67e93c397c8888721f8f65031a27c6704820e21
56514 F20101118_AABRHV manganyi_t_Page_067.pro
e9e49d647b0a455ec2a09865c91c679c
c42f8486cbe0366930c98d565fe0100c12224519
F20101118_AABQET manganyi_t_Page_032.pro
a70b674cdb558c8e512256f2b04e67eb
884ec8c3335b6c549b3d4a55de2592921352cd45
F20101118_AABPZN manganyi_t_Page_068.tif
20d19607c49ce7fdb91e09932d21d040
05ee6fd4211f20cf58f412ee84a49f5472f201f3
F20101118_AABPYY manganyi_t_Page_155.tif
068aac6c3cc196558b1d239d409aa571
e56291803a22e4e5b427a239a711891600ff2e31
114339 F20101118_AABQFH manganyi_t_Page_064.jp2
6442245d76b9220a874f3c60896a06f8
048e6d20dcbf6850d8aa9d571b1f6e920c8b6531
30781 F20101118_AABRIK manganyi_t_Page_095.pro
6f9263d13066ba6b117ba3fda6d7983b
c0edaf17f3a824de963d87af44b7b72d0a3da311
47884 F20101118_AABRHW manganyi_t_Page_069.pro
1920800c6374730ceff808452947975a
403518a3d752814a26123a6b649317b794f11e71
85613 F20101118_AABQEU manganyi_t_Page_036.jpg
cddcd963c9dc4bfbdd0fd60134bd631f
ca58a79c8c8e27de1b68c55630bf2615f3517685
14912 F20101118_AABPZO manganyi_t_Page_161.QC.jpg
e2740e9def7c03d99e56b50785274e5c
2cdb7962f8fdd720ad53a1102dc72428c329ed21
94760 F20101118_AABPYZ manganyi_t_Page_013.jp2
2842157ed6f42e7ef41135c2134b2bbe
59e8724a3b53ba0d81542f41f9a56725c70e5ea5
55153 F20101118_AABQFI manganyi_t_Page_110.pro
730b8bd4365f18ebf917692404def2b1
3bd1e529c5c788900961fb71579535890174b89b
48318 F20101118_AABRJA manganyi_t_Page_133.pro
5fb30cf2a905a6897cd4b170bd727571
dba0bb26f640b18025118f12922d128c37c1af26
25729 F20101118_AABRIL manganyi_t_Page_096.pro
dc21d60a9a65ceeb33a729e228657589
53229a5dd200330e6183c4b6cb447073ea730267
56475 F20101118_AABRHX manganyi_t_Page_070.pro
e47a594aa6f32b4e5529b483513efcdd
edca081c1def64e0a26543a39b23c33e7cc0b55c
F20101118_AABQEV manganyi_t_Page_023.tif
8042e3117d6aac76887eba660c39de71
208fc3e6d2d7e7cb56096e5e3b6f587d14291c4c
84413 F20101118_AABPZP manganyi_t_Page_061.jpg
29e673eb9d5404b31aa1f9ef8442a11e
93b1d054dfba268b35a85b1fc9e7345931a978c3
F20101118_AABQFJ manganyi_t_Page_049.tif
c3dbd9351784b9392ff58bad8ce956f7
c613a3c04cc3ef6904925cf4b190cd9331b8bb01
53924 F20101118_AABRJB manganyi_t_Page_134.pro
f01debbeed7a52e6a5be9352b5b1d827
e946bf1e012860a714af9544ab2116a0bda2f90a
19962 F20101118_AABRIM manganyi_t_Page_097.pro
7ba9d93fd8244543aec33b29b0051cbb
59b6f2d1bf39c3187fce195c8f4a2edda2987990
55068 F20101118_AABRHY manganyi_t_Page_072.pro
5e958d8a168f5a6a5e8d11cdce0885ef
0769b8bfd35d227b155d0e423faf0f0e0ffa0b96
31616 F20101118_AABQEW manganyi_t_Page_189.QC.jpg
de9f2aea5b9f14a28d8de5e998d5e014
83130f9050d90357f953a6828196ab0f92af5f6f
91094 F20101118_AABPZQ manganyi_t_Page_111.jpg
5ad7fb4d65511f37e57b7876ae3304e9
a3883bff0545aa0fa0a4aa62f52e34d6410b3b3a
118051 F20101118_AABQFK manganyi_t_Page_113.jp2
3e3dadbe33e13d696ce04e2f604ba354
a1651448648ed6ade9ad21f4843ec8dfab6fb64e
54806 F20101118_AABRJC manganyi_t_Page_137.pro
b414d82475eab9f698924988b55186db
6e299011c4dc79373dab7f82eb7ca2e4071976be
40120 F20101118_AABRIN manganyi_t_Page_100.pro
82b5fe9c2ffc2f0921b1199580da537d
c85ac986744463805310d55a6586576c29e0798a
42171 F20101118_AABRHZ manganyi_t_Page_074.pro
254c7681ce64fe5ef4534b365f507bff
49d778863aa468f5c6d71d0a1ddd8aba4f19cc82
812 F20101118_AABQEX manganyi_t_Page_105.txt
58d311edf121c6596304197bd8e64f9d
66c6fcd9d088671410ae25da719993e063a429f0
F20101118_AABPZR manganyi_t_Page_040.tif
748e36fc9e7586f42aaf9a6294b55491
8e5331dcb2c11133a03a87beec4732a269ce1767
1754 F20101118_AABQGA manganyi_t_Page_083.txt
08bf7053e6837adea01579a0da72828d
1ec684b788d7256010f9298c5d779e423ca3fd09
24813 F20101118_AABQFL manganyi_t_Page_133.QC.jpg
237cb7b43b308c39fae6c84fe3e48a69
f6829a121b92c23a6e5c0a36d7b2e2cba2f963c3
49559 F20101118_AABRJD manganyi_t_Page_138.pro
8dd67f16a2b73962f7a64dc289e4ccf8
1c55611a6eefa1301713b50e4b7d53b308b6c286
35020 F20101118_AABRIO manganyi_t_Page_101.pro
1910af165641747de31039bb488319a5
4e1a89cb4efac267362cb31a80786960ac76aa6a
89448 F20101118_AABQEY manganyi_t_Page_136.jpg
4a6b228f662119c00d99599671f0acbe
dd73fb1de8a3afa1897314c81c14bda8e8acfd92
15194 F20101118_AABPZS manganyi_t_Page_164.QC.jpg
591258d44a9376873eb9f64f465e003d
92e6dbaf74ff81c9309a8250a1e0153323b1bf81
53296 F20101118_AABQGB manganyi_t_Page_056.jp2
7383561a72b0cc91edd4eb1281109ce5
5e0452e9e692f3fb84b8ab118801ea34b90d76d4
4119 F20101118_AABQFM manganyi_t_Page_149thm.jpg
95e73d791ac19430f2aac59459a13c5c
d47961a25534880cfd9ed8ac0a3da8eb566c89a0
16091 F20101118_AABRIP manganyi_t_Page_102.pro
b8f8ab5b2bd42ed9f8dd00084bef300e
3b9f76512a081f2e96a84ea0fce5657413327cde
6420 F20101118_AABQEZ manganyi_t_Page_072thm.jpg
bae44babe6471ecdfb94aa147f054e14
3c5c761f74379e7cba1cb88f7527cff08979f972
14296 F20101118_AABPZT manganyi_t_Page_159.QC.jpg
2a5e977329d61aca505b90140cc15ab9
e9d84b90e21a5003fd5eaa486a400b3862ed264c
2294 F20101118_AABQFN manganyi_t_Page_118.txt
5af1b7652821a09503d582def7f29713
8c93c92e5874aafd5a9309f7e225ce868d33b4fd
56069 F20101118_AABRJE manganyi_t_Page_139.pro
9abfa16f07dcce3da5fd8617c7d65ccd
9ae17dbba39316e3975ec5955af23ab2eb3b2c9a
17215 F20101118_AABRIQ manganyi_t_Page_103.pro
ac080ae417fbc6403459ff6541b052a3
110bb1c5b70469f50447cfd81e9699d3657dd092
F20101118_AABPZU manganyi_t_Page_028.tif
9928efcdc07616b42e8c2b4abc8ce070
2f0b0dbaaa406203d04eb5d606bc8bb82342ff6a
F20101118_AABQGC manganyi_t_Page_193.tif
904322d7f0df4176fae3b546c91ffe8d
3a3914c697ea250e4c30660cecbb8e4bcc3c3533
3899 F20101118_AABQFO manganyi_t_Page_164thm.jpg
86db652ee419bf3989413c3640714f9b
6f2cb96ab67197adcf185f10bcf93ceb0dcf9bc5
29384 F20101118_AABRJF manganyi_t_Page_141.pro
fe8dd231c1e7ddc94ca04b7bdad09c87
c2fe746ff15f3df1fb37d155aebd0be4fa75a1be
52954 F20101118_AABRIR manganyi_t_Page_117.pro
ac610c434eebec57b636d5120a8b6308
da992b666f196427511a5d7ff5d5f49fb74571d4
27607 F20101118_AABPZV manganyi_t_Page_026.QC.jpg
a366f9f50e4ad2d38639d3cbd725d9e0
2e6fd4db32629cc607e7ea522c0912da8653a2f5
49487 F20101118_AABQGD manganyi_t_Page_028.pro
3904c375400a9c5efb52ca03807e26fa
05234e0874a23409a3eb700f9f0b8c3a32574454
103579 F20101118_AABQFP manganyi_t_Page_183.jpg
1348e556f7887bfa7a20f8657be96b6a
fcaeae95394e06d65b96d40ad313c986b65441f7
89668 F20101118_AABRJG manganyi_t_Page_142.pro
7da5c429ecb1392bd37346d0d8e33cea
e073dc5d486d5623089e9fad2b748553cde70d07
58589 F20101118_AABRIS manganyi_t_Page_118.pro
07e0fea2e05382fce7ae74a52174a09d
fa28cde92e423144b380c0a7534ddbe332d9a015
88647 F20101118_AABQGE manganyi_t_Page_023.jpg
36a5877b7d7726b4f312254187f84745
d9cb32eabf042cfcbd3c3deb6588d5d0e625a120
19189 F20101118_AABQFQ manganyi_t_Page_007.QC.jpg
7ee0dd38830feb4c412349cf989e1c5e
3606cc4791fe8cb1c89c8f9d199edd5761824869
28738 F20101118_AABRJH manganyi_t_Page_144.pro
108c81ae1a9ae2b2f7d6b0603472c323
712ff89b7cc148cab9afd93c5e19f707c7211789
54173 F20101118_AABRIT manganyi_t_Page_119.pro
b5cecc564060f15050ea87e44a84a641
d9569d3bf526b457a1081c05635d9fdab14c94a2
63033 F20101118_AABPZW manganyi_t_Page_194.pro
9c62ac21ae547399ac70ce1531510211
bfe9f942e811b3c25e8978343b4cd8e02498eb89
28067 F20101118_AABQGF manganyi_t_Page_060.QC.jpg
0b745889b5467e45ad128fdfd0bff486
119a557a4cac8a4046d8f829773d07676abd1488
26796 F20101118_AABQFR manganyi_t_Page_044.QC.jpg
2554bc699a38219074ee190b2d67dcb8
c032e1c0b0a0121146b9b4a387e124caa3637a6e
22922 F20101118_AABRJI manganyi_t_Page_145.pro
d96468894d3f0d8846b8980362a77288
eef8eb3d63ebcda4dc93f78b2edb1ab5a19aa461
56026 F20101118_AABRIU manganyi_t_Page_120.pro
bb47821742a68648037007d4374bad1f
8c5a3762dfecee5aa74a509be58bb7d0476d165c
121244 F20101118_AABPZX manganyi_t_Page_042.jp2
559ca2f88854b3d931639a7f8bdb90e7
9d5d8d28d92e3041226bae15b242c10850622b9b
91315 F20101118_AABQGG manganyi_t_Page_043.jpg
314a6eca41af9ecfae06301d87f8ee6b
c251338b7cf589dffd2e3f4fedfa4d04d6d77bb1
84362 F20101118_AABQFS manganyi_t_Page_179.jpg
d6c7072de431c10662269a264abfcbc7
7e8e6b81aad07df708c8a2d96c0e84287750c25e
22177 F20101118_AABRJJ manganyi_t_Page_152.pro
cc7334f23fcb9006d3eebc8f8d83a5aa
2e5abb08461d8fcac635074fbab4a176d058fa24
52623 F20101118_AABRIV manganyi_t_Page_121.pro
b51113b6a6f2aec32f95b29ae94a24d1
0e310b5a55c3f6832af4450abf815ad683b40ced
104273 F20101118_AABPZY manganyi_t_Page_131.jp2
33adfcf33eec064adcbe7d36f3b6ee15
e9aa804edf4fa1f10adc33d8e9caa063ee0d867d
27822 F20101118_AABQGH manganyi_t_Page_119.QC.jpg
0162f51654f586c0945aba49f72f71fc
2db5279c4e7d9aef1ef209e87c4ee8da5f87ec04
119190 F20101118_AABQFT manganyi_t_Page_072.jp2
bed95d6a77c534a0269ef19068fcfb62
6bbda5daf06eb60fc14cc978269eb41fc7fd72e4
17207 F20101118_AABRJK manganyi_t_Page_153.pro
0693a5f51cd152fcc3899f0aa843f0ae
5abfb1fab88de9d87b5feb37548a80bf0821a64c
52127 F20101118_AABRIW manganyi_t_Page_122.pro
3d2c0478058ea30a804dfc68862c7bd2
cd9523eb72e36a2d8b051f060273bb1c22e79149
F20101118_AABPZZ manganyi_t_Page_130.tif
bf8c0dfd4f56fa705c671648b6929c7f
9691c9dd53339fc5a721dba3a592ea2d2bbaea23
F20101118_AABQGI manganyi_t_Page_104thm.jpg
a9e014f7109e659746212c3fc35d29bf
a915d41b0fc8e0bfa8c02503c6cdf28c52796681
117240 F20101118_AABQFU manganyi_t_Page_177.jp2
59f9c9c80f8997858bc0983283d131ca
34a9a48d56361082b6d35ebcd476731685d2c6d0
55107 F20101118_AABRKA manganyi_t_Page_177.pro
2c6ae430ddc0e4e3f3d9b1d571f8b2c6
6258f3f270655481493a2ef9e75af9048886fd47
58603 F20101118_AABRJL manganyi_t_Page_154.pro
f3f4adb2e5ecfb0ca05cdb753058c41e
c5742d8ce0cbebee174265eaa986b28db838d79b
46881 F20101118_AABRIX manganyi_t_Page_127.pro
6dea3f9a0e448c776e31f478b29a41c8
f6df50635f0ab515549932ed31655badc4530a60
90132 F20101118_AABQGJ manganyi_t_Page_081.jpg
d26160e58d464810d3fa10c4dc4ba740
3e44c02404865caf1e66e3c5eaf7f8c1985b2020
90233 F20101118_AABQFV manganyi_t_Page_089.jpg
6083e22f66a2e5fdbb52b109354dfbb3
bd85589ffa86b28cd0adf4f550d1e2a481dfdca0
54244 F20101118_AABRKB manganyi_t_Page_178.pro
552fb3e4c5dc1f22f5f26522f306e48e
d26aa4918876c84cb4ed3a815d60f2fbf4974c2a
42859 F20101118_AABRJM manganyi_t_Page_155.pro
5876b95888f3bf308c6bc0e8c88338f9
2b98995c9453ec6965e48d421e82b616ca3bbc08
46353 F20101118_AABRIY manganyi_t_Page_128.pro
069e2a213a19f1972e646b582fa6ed12
b68043d588e31c4193062e216af7747ea14b4fe9
54696 F20101118_AABQGK manganyi_t_Page_026.pro
42ee81ad22bf0254f44b04e50ef59ce9
21144fb6b2e14a3135ec1073566fff5f5c57ee7e
F20101118_AABQFW manganyi_t_Page_064.tif
8f15152694a98557f7b7a16d329e9ed7
419b912c5a3cf5c53a181a64a2a47f79ced2eb2a
49833 F20101118_AABRKC manganyi_t_Page_179.pro
8cdd06b1b308418b98f3d638da3ddaf9
e8f5d8829cc84705ac80d451be718b994073195c
25233 F20101118_AABRJN manganyi_t_Page_158.pro
5fbfa4659ebe6368d45096dadc2d706c
650f88c21cfe3584399845fcef8229027b32fd3e
54628 F20101118_AABRIZ manganyi_t_Page_132.pro
32d3c0ff0c1f7b45ddb49a4788118be1
7ed580c1a17b36afac5c9a3502b3d4ae3bf63d91
50254 F20101118_AABQHA manganyi_t_Page_143.jp2
d06975cdfc41c9bf2c61131651ace754
06ed846c4a841304d29e4894e5d0f314ff186d27
6664 F20101118_AABQGL manganyi_t_Page_136thm.jpg
695c1618026678d661459f4437b56834
a88d29fff0bd76c52a1e7e975a465539a7f05423
5937 F20101118_AABQFX manganyi_t_Page_139thm.jpg
5b06d385fe26691f62e6ba9060f2a364
608dfe2005734569b36733e1eeb80113da6c41dc
54875 F20101118_AABRKD manganyi_t_Page_181.pro
a930cf612d6e712dcb5b12bfdc9bfd10
0c6fef364275cb03251200e3fa36b151dc7227a0
27389 F20101118_AABRJO manganyi_t_Page_159.pro
0b1688f306b3e786b4660d2ec419f427
83b8acc72a0a69f986b9a621b5c239a08ae57322
F20101118_AABQHB manganyi_t_Page_173.tif
f57722f73deac6ebae62dcc55ab179ba
b19ca5c3ab00f14f33971f490d3f7c3cfd0e2e94
F20101118_AABQGM manganyi_t_Page_034.tif
9a1e9f981c93ca1cb085743258304e49
9bd6bc3923e7a9052c44b0e59c03386cfd15d69f
46304 F20101118_AABQFY manganyi_t_Page_099.jpg
b3e225d54085265db80bf357a8a69140
abfdee1ed81ee8b33e8517c6b5be69983e7f5fd5
63281 F20101118_AABRKE manganyi_t_Page_184.pro
f7645ca1e65e8484f90b74b78c2c0c5d
cab83b06a3564898154831de6c54b55033359d3f
25396 F20101118_AABRJP manganyi_t_Page_160.pro
45d04f6e041a612f78afaad5fe968117
5e9a4709804d7849e558796435831ca6a11d5892
48424 F20101118_AABQHC manganyi_t_Page_130.pro
a55a0f45adacce5546b631c94c84963c
a341686c53ea3c3761694f8314d7dd21695a7ab5
994 F20101118_AABQGN manganyi_t_Page_156.txt
f53ebfcd0e681683fb66e77016c73442
3593dcd716640e9576a226c01ee0ac42b7ceb4b8
28227 F20101118_AABQFZ manganyi_t_Page_035.QC.jpg
b07f3313645c8499c6089c1b788064db
fed3de223bc06f616d50ee2f90489199c2848ad6
26425 F20101118_AABRJQ manganyi_t_Page_162.pro
1c65fea68199fd6b73079653e2e894a7
308c1b3dc1349cd10ee2366e4889e8f8aa28b66a
95048 F20101118_AABQGO manganyi_t_Page_139.jpg
2691da68921bf473b112ac519a9469b7
d8159d73c66e908b72aedb03b4882ac0fd22d655
60989 F20101118_AABRKF manganyi_t_Page_185.pro
6db2333550475499fdcd639039945bc7
852a8a1389033ce8748aae901b38fbdc7a4b045d
33076 F20101118_AABRJR manganyi_t_Page_163.pro
8f8a6f0f4859f621578cbbc7851082cc
4534a33254d9b6d2bd3434b185606b1f29a67d7b
112461 F20101118_AABQHD manganyi_t_Page_114.jp2
ebd5938411c19b5f1ebbbf05c16708ba
ce8cb0ac36a90d9302bbe33d3c84d3bec8b64d18
2019 F20101118_AABQGP manganyi_t_Page_086.txt
df5db23eee58ec53d2ab933bdb685c32
968029c651ff2fb5730a245817d3172cd5525f3c
57999 F20101118_AABRKG manganyi_t_Page_187.pro
957b06e53dd00f2d89ebd7c270f3acb9
c82e51ef5200ce5f27820e1f16a012d16c3fb68c
25550 F20101118_AABRJS manganyi_t_Page_164.pro
f2caf21a0c041d33b30741f53b1ba80d
d055f5da69821e7333d1aa3a30f0a79aac25b971
2212 F20101118_AABQHE manganyi_t_Page_174.txt
2c886eb41ba95e5b1ac867ad9cb66011
b5efe7cb940f9a2994c74b2c23206bb28c077323
5248 F20101118_AABQGQ manganyi_t_Page_031thm.jpg
e11b04d891bb8e19e7d928f13d72a890
30e9089bc4778577b21d5288551f7f900489daba
65090 F20101118_AABRKH manganyi_t_Page_188.pro
aba175466b019180d80498106ef852c5
5542442e8b5d8f0f3c2397dd5735906258c15127
27513 F20101118_AABRJT manganyi_t_Page_166.pro
2f4d2ab689669f13b5e8040c3902f9e8
ab316774095fb81e3bca2b0f4ef1dc39f63954cb
82124 F20101118_AABQHF manganyi_t_Page_080.jpg
91c6863dffb5afb109e86fee8bfbf569
ae864aab68a5e0289ac7b7aa85d9b8467b530b30
2070 F20101118_AABQGR manganyi_t_Page_124.txt
eeb22a4266cd739efaae013d060ac9e1
ef14e898d22f4255448210c47feacfde90022528
60276 F20101118_AABRKI manganyi_t_Page_192.pro
1ecd7b09db83406c46af287d1976f96c
f87aefe77b251549ce2b7b7ebcafb71efbe5d9eb
51812 F20101118_AABRJU manganyi_t_Page_168.pro
51d717f41a1042545689413d53f41c00
5b3ac71389ef4343ad90fd670baf929b5819803a
F20101118_AABQHG manganyi_t_Page_162.tif
6df42570a86603df01f3371abd3212bf
6cf458c7eaad495ac69fe9defbff837cce5cd8d1
F20101118_AABQGS manganyi_t_Page_006.tif
9598791eb612acd6aa4c7daabc5e6e3d
bb7986cd6129aa44cc38dacf58d08725cd2979a2
3915 F20101118_AABRKJ manganyi_t_Page_195.pro
77ad453c1e62d8bc3b27c9c1f028657f
e69beea4f2e188f1dba9225e717f7cc745355099
64964 F20101118_AABRJV manganyi_t_Page_170.pro
b77e6e509e6e794bd04cf5d4f8600569
95f2a886c6ca71244273e67c2879b321795580d2
115093 F20101118_AABQHH manganyi_t_Page_189.jpg
497e480c1fd1198eac38dc654a679305
aa893aedeb7a6a141f88749b0315faae7ddc6157
4800 F20101118_AABQGT manganyi_t_Page_162thm.jpg
dfc40c64e630f19be71206ce5f1600c3
8dc4b0d212b965535db59782585dbfd41e8efd3a
152 F20101118_AABRKK manganyi_t_Page_003.txt
d7b68d2579b87a61684ca2179ed460d2
c51b1d7b1ab2a65fc02945c4534a2fc4f327b8e7
55796 F20101118_AABRJW manganyi_t_Page_172.pro
c78176345f5fbafb1da992d148b69536
8dad6ce90797c85db82219da67bafcfaa34b3e99
1344 F20101118_AABQHI manganyi_t_Page_093.txt
a7496c04e957a435c12fc15918f5af1d
e304322cd136d7d217332cb595ab041adf915990
64454 F20101118_AABQGU manganyi_t_Page_144.jp2
1cd336bbff88ec0c94136636dea2f30e
8fb6ee56ea49afb5494a5861deee7c2d54fe2fb7
2038 F20101118_AABRLA manganyi_t_Page_028.txt
eebb96288b97db2dd354a7eee3d84612
8fdb15bf6bf5d7d8edd1102660e7a9a3954a43dd
2172 F20101118_AABRKL manganyi_t_Page_004.txt
ce275fbfcb75357981649ea308dcf638
5c77e3e9f9b8bbdb09961af3d26f9e9ab40feec2
49768 F20101118_AABRJX manganyi_t_Page_173.pro
f68552cabd238b1abe608499ac39301c
733e9cf68b6c7406f8a59cdd2fbee20d44d8688a
84823 F20101118_AABQHJ manganyi_t_Page_107.jpg
6dcc0f9414c3860b803ce3ded1462e3c
097e4031f1b1d538030f92fe788eebfc4745a2e4
2830 F20101118_AABQGV manganyi_t_Page_105thm.jpg
02773fb7d4d0152d89b24a9b597ba0c6
71a1e35b8e27c3ddbfac84903acf6bad3d2b541c
2087 F20101118_AABRLB manganyi_t_Page_030.txt
6f0d22c8d5f670b53e09a7e5bac36ea9
4c646cbbb6363b1c989c78446d1250c699bcf3de
1965 F20101118_AABRKM manganyi_t_Page_005.txt
b484619ca7bb451718853ae3772d4c5d
4c8cee82ff7579155e7b290d3f59c90be1f98df5
55990 F20101118_AABRJY manganyi_t_Page_175.pro
a451222bb6cd1de7a73eb4eb260f39dd
3cc698b2480e84cef2be43824da92b16f1643119
2835 F20101118_AABQHK manganyi_t_Page_170.txt
e9de6e317d9c04332c23de7e4c0ef457
496a107575e106f92c70832e2ffa9601d79c8d99
1974 F20101118_AABQGW manganyi_t_Page_059.txt
715d688b5db9eadfe0266d04bdc6bd2d
019f9761c81714e3e64eddfd78675a6e55ee61d2
607 F20101118_AABRLC manganyi_t_Page_032.txt
0674784dc82f72a0aa89d01265fd7a17
165aeb2465a214899ad95da99516676297c07c5a
277 F20101118_AABRKN manganyi_t_Page_006.txt
f4a5d464d0599d918f7996fc25118af2
d75b12e738f47e72f6084035cec4ccf86175c792
55292 F20101118_AABRJZ manganyi_t_Page_176.pro
70d82213d640dea1ec0978aad75c8d39
d939c8fe6fccd2965b8ea58f44cb191a1d4f298a
56349 F20101118_AABQHL manganyi_t_Page_174.pro
740f99e031bd0a6be063a1144eac5c6e
927a4a0b0323c4f483774ef456426d07ba1c960f
61151 F20101118_AABQGX manganyi_t_Page_010.pro
1611d3e64c044e045941ad179e720083
5c2f5a2cd35f702577f8bfe1e861639fb123a802
F20101118_AABQIA manganyi_t_Page_019.tif
58598ded96d5bbef0cdd3315b5cd169b
f3b5a7b6088592e41420a0394603bdd9de9cb433
2115 F20101118_AABRLD manganyi_t_Page_033.txt
bb42271fe8b9ebd55a02bef1a664e7bb
5b7cccaecf7a37c2be5c46df27cc9d5f5d234c8d
4145 F20101118_AABRKO manganyi_t_Page_008.txt
e418df4e796e68850b47f5eba34b333f
b7f4047f587ec4aeaf20c24c1e79f5bf0b9b9fdf
27141 F20101118_AABQHM manganyi_t_Page_022.QC.jpg
ed819c4c5ecafe262f306e69471411fc
4fe0792df18b15414c11d95a3b4e837370c887a5
87717 F20101118_AABQGY manganyi_t_Page_018.jpg
f78b538f8445713d96e72034ddf5cc7e
0eddbd704f3ba4ed08fce2d18bb22a3232c80278
F20101118_AABQIB manganyi_t_Page_190.tif
c83d222e45d3b54cbe67f1013f01904d
4c45bb640764cb1cbe328004308688fa5c6c1f58
2084 F20101118_AABRLE manganyi_t_Page_034.txt
0148998c5a2ce1caa226d72634dcab49
d161f0a1d3a5a9f6979465fdb8cf0851ea9969d9
2539 F20101118_AABRKP manganyi_t_Page_009.txt
1418ea039ff300e2e16086d344cbdb83
fd827ad41e55970ef0ddbae404252253ad3c74e8
11057 F20101118_AABQHN manganyi_t_Page_182.pro
91e60d391cd555d8703a6b2eb7cc3ecb
4b591573ac20b2d055e855657337843590d9e000
6617 F20101118_AABQGZ manganyi_t_Page_046thm.jpg
f618f80c9af51d2b654ecfe885ab7ac4
c0f50d90679d186c8b6b25fc6c2c5648ebb8ddac
52681 F20101118_AABQIC manganyi_t_Page_020.pro
3517c4ff45e9f70d44741d249527fd2c
1168669334d120e53cb83fed49714a88547f09fb
2050 F20101118_AABRLF manganyi_t_Page_036.txt
1f81386f43a82aaca294957a60521f75
5b77fd09de017fabd3d01d26a9385ddcbe061767
1622 F20101118_AABRKQ manganyi_t_Page_011.txt
a770a1f607e26e086f756e19caf351d7
e0e34b8ce4b0cc691ddd2a02e97efb80c677ae09
7208 F20101118_AABQHO manganyi_t_Page_189thm.jpg
db55d685edd18158c27c765a9f1a0aaf
02c08405606cf2e3bb616ceb5942c5fd92591f4e
2127 F20101118_AABQID manganyi_t_Page_060.txt
bcf95f7eae030699021fb8574612de70
f0ca213b259463a02f3652570fa35528837041f2
708 F20101118_AABRKR manganyi_t_Page_012.txt
63622d632abfe12fc5ab0149c4d41a81
cffd5fb2cb0ab9fd23c2595af2ffe3324b14f863
53273 F20101118_AABQHP manganyi_t_Page_126.pro
4f54f79f3c6c7daa32f3f745015b3faa
5571b9e8f65226627ea86205beedc493f3535354
2168 F20101118_AABRLG manganyi_t_Page_037.txt
eb00e87d2b162d5771593b59bd11a110
c28425d4a7fa013fbcef0427e1e844089873a6e9
F20101118_AABRKS manganyi_t_Page_014.txt
f54303a4120131ad459a7b51dc8613da
c6c7550bb8d5196015f6a189a1d8d619de39f9ca
5867 F20101118_AABQHQ manganyi_t_Page_058thm.jpg
1a13a5ec0a94aa21cb1c392e8cba5726
27a94de20485eedadce109f20844d9fee074b1a3
27401 F20101118_AABQIE manganyi_t_Page_170.QC.jpg
5d1c315d80042f7d800b430ce1db136c
59c7a914194bfbe6c3e7dd036d2ae787c527dd1f
2009 F20101118_AABRLH manganyi_t_Page_038.txt
46b69893b31449c2d9e0d772c2d4d46d
4f15b10ae5aa941ad8083f8bc31095df64152cb7
2175 F20101118_AABRKT manganyi_t_Page_016.txt
e494e5336de2dfc468fe7481be6bf74e
a32d974da371af5dc2cc79000d77094244cd3c72
65465 F20101118_AABQHR manganyi_t_Page_101.jpg
479fb2a81d76fc662bbb902068fd0837
230b7481edc0a9811c0ae8d51804253dc0b1cdc1
5733 F20101118_AABQIF manganyi_t_Page_171.QC.jpg
4149000d9715d80663e461e9eb3678e3
b66aaddfd9d69abf5e2c0a952bc03e55c6a31ce1
2058 F20101118_AABRLI manganyi_t_Page_039.txt
83517ef81a61743174fe086f4e3c2884
4cdcebbda5763dce78210c5a3d6b88cbe6b96fe3
2182 F20101118_AABRKU manganyi_t_Page_017.txt
b1d5c95d98a57461a1e1722d1f9bc6e8
5c857106499a484bbe5ce8ca9a6feb38d7cb59cc
6723 F20101118_AABQHS manganyi_t_Page_090thm.jpg
1b6b4f8dbff0e0ac11e3dfb499592ab1
a723e0826daba17c8caad2fa02d5e2f36a8a5dfd
23513 F20101118_AABQIG manganyi_t_Page_161.pro
d5de1768dc0d7ac16ae4d797f1dda025
fec62af407bf1c2fcb2b765e5edd27f3f5ce114d
2225 F20101118_AABRLJ manganyi_t_Page_040.txt
859e37acbe4b61c92a32775cdd7650a3
621cd5f27152852ca82e0be38f7d85bbf4d03633
2098 F20101118_AABRKV manganyi_t_Page_018.txt
913e7f808e2034c3a22347092f49607e
4061d859ba3457e373421ae63574a9a3d9441b61
88430 F20101118_AABQIH manganyi_t_Page_054.jpg
9b31e327676453b0f398f2bc0c7659c2
61e207944e123069d2f98b559146ad7c6d1e0535
46646 F20101118_AABQHT manganyi_t_Page_158.jpg
22ee87026a1686fcaf787739e5292719
3de7711abfb1e95ec13dd1367595e3cd62fc523a
2062 F20101118_AABRLK manganyi_t_Page_041.txt
96806bbdde08d64fa402dc4aeef45781
0b656f0c9a858de059151218415e104bdd8a4936
2093 F20101118_AABRKW manganyi_t_Page_019.txt
c7cbfed0377e427ca61bd1c7f8b80967
66d5c5c05cf9182ad74fa26582bd7b91a65daae7
107803 F20101118_AABQII manganyi_t_Page_180.jp2
ca0b7d40683bcbd56379b8684a781fb3
0a1a53a14c720d4b709919db6725658db352ba33
4841 F20101118_AABQHU manganyi_t_Page_057.QC.jpg
fa977fcd896dec0fdde0e6bb62754bdb
ecf0ab158556c521410b89f7d730f0baef4b0f3f
2210 F20101118_AABRMA manganyi_t_Page_073.txt
9df5731dacb515614a6cd4b5f32d82c1
8c6f1efa7a63b3ed620696cfb2a734978c206aad
2178 F20101118_AABRLL manganyi_t_Page_043.txt
66e9203a080de6d849725cbf37681464
e365885e0da7ca33773c9bd797108be99dad4d6a
2164 F20101118_AABRKX manganyi_t_Page_021.txt
49236ed7c913a13d016be50988c82b85
5d00902edb27ac0d510d4d1dba20ce434a049a7d
6905 F20101118_AABQIJ manganyi_t_Page_190thm.jpg
d626134f47fe3d48735a68fdef65ad87
e7384c6a7803028ac9af0f425d15f773bc46718f
23373 F20101118_AABQHV manganyi_t_Page_074.QC.jpg
72b407e6751bae127b352192d9ce4ddb
dec907ed902a0fc7bef945b8ac084b922e01bcd6
1731 F20101118_AABRMB manganyi_t_Page_074.txt
ec98aa06fcc9e48dfd9441ab72f79713
f72879317914a0b772d66c130fd1054022db7eb8
2044 F20101118_AABRLM manganyi_t_Page_044.txt
96a8b556536c0f1d9d28f03c3b42884e
7623bdc148876ca634d35bebada370db1dfcb556
2066 F20101118_AABRKY manganyi_t_Page_022.txt
931e2283212699ad4208fe731506c46b
cfb53a90a6cbccd9870042cd143ca6c4847dd776
15781 F20101118_AABQIK manganyi_t_Page_009.QC.jpg
9376fb5126fb20f8abbf958d33f36d60
de5754c46d34692910d3d3d7137a155df7573dea
72307 F20101118_AABQHW manganyi_t_Page_009.jpg
80ecde662ee7bb6f574b838c3e52c341
8555501c7cf14255ed6ac704cadcefc8d1c702d1
1534 F20101118_AABRMC manganyi_t_Page_075.txt
4e9068f54a6a551f96048cc50de99078
384fc3e1df10a614edb2b3f0fed6855867c3ccef
2219 F20101118_AABRLN manganyi_t_Page_046.txt
f469d919dc500f4d4ed3b3fe6193b7d5
ceb59cd9d26ee3f236a2f004dc5dd98e923ce9a1
2154 F20101118_AABRKZ manganyi_t_Page_026.txt
2eb4eaac90607cb2576d08e925a7e450
bb48e9fd7c5f4c78b8a5897d9ad449a880ec4f4a
2102 F20101118_AABQJA manganyi_t_Page_126.txt
1579a59dfe943ddefb3f245a33a20824
0f2bd1055e48dceff51c42126ee75341f517bc10
87665 F20101118_AABQIL manganyi_t_Page_019.jpg
c67a1f5639dcfa6a5ff56270398f57d9
4972e3b864e28d9a679794ff0c16750f3522b74c
F20101118_AABQHX manganyi_t_Page_142.tif
9fcad6354df59de99cbec0e96878d642
e50595f2a7bc944e793fb3716672ea2d9a8ad9cc
2244 F20101118_AABRMD manganyi_t_Page_076.txt
06b76dae2c060fb2126f2226ba3120e8
5cc371d5b7ca97c2a2ca3321d201385493b4391e
2106 F20101118_AABRLO manganyi_t_Page_048.txt
4ed4d73f0efb8f04e947f8f3eb8f50c1
b654d17da123c53c3d86f85a8c3d3ec43b3136da
1106 F20101118_AABQJB manganyi_t_Page_164.txt
39960a777cd59f0e0033ad76d3870e0a
ef5f442b7915e6cbc861a1b30662d803d546b032
5976 F20101118_AABQIM manganyi_t_Page_015thm.jpg
01bbaa8ad78b30c33acc69977fd64870
6885148477e1b166616fbfe1905594f69f9c4edb
F20101118_AABQHY manganyi_t_Page_167.pro
b81e6bf334b075c48afcc6793018adf7
d0f3a60e95a43d77f82fff3ed53f0128337d9340
1615 F20101118_AABRME manganyi_t_Page_077.txt
12fcd6ce913010cdea47918b7a7697b0
12604a31c90675e9b0c6d8af6edf1ffd2719e7d5
2099 F20101118_AABRLP manganyi_t_Page_054.txt
7783a09c76bed8a4861867bbfe911155
74a340dc187175226354846c7f320fca4f17f7af
96309 F20101118_AABQJC manganyi_t_Page_118.jpg
e0cfc3b3618a7ac141730639678b7982
2099dabaa88c6d6f0de2ac3f71aa5246539c9d9f
30815 F20101118_AABQIN manganyi_t_Page_082.QC.jpg
cf469066ee9a2cce89ac94b2ba3d1e85
c2139deb87e13ccd9eb08a9c18567ef4eb58abb7
2499 F20101118_AABQHZ manganyi_t_Page_157thm.jpg
0516c587898f28d24908f51124aa444c
8ee8fc315617457929bb61e7646d236399d3c327
114 F20101118_AABRMF manganyi_t_Page_078.txt
62076058b403320afe29b58bfd98ad01
28c5ebd20833ee543c6bf650be9cf76c094c1fc7
401 F20101118_AABRLQ manganyi_t_Page_055.txt
3102450c5af244247313c88fad384264
2eedec1d7e49ac40be9dfdda279dc58bf3466458
71852 F20101118_AABQJD manganyi_t_Page_031.jpg
52900b355c27cdc6871e706709e87f7d
170e5645aead509a459c6b19cc372b2f52dbf94f
F20101118_AABQIO manganyi_t_Page_183.jp2
1451a4c9514b2fd14172b9ebfc682329
37d98b3d65516da5e58a58ed9a7cf258d306c550
232 F20101118_AABRMG manganyi_t_Page_079.txt
331fe15feb65488830f1ddfdcd167de6
60788d4837a9fc925692896db2d5c7c34d8c3e09
1072 F20101118_AABRLR manganyi_t_Page_056.txt
ab81f9fc5cbc500dbed8e0037cf42aff
c0929ab1f8ef323987da5d7b95e648054283d528
114909 F20101118_AABQJE manganyi_t_Page_054.jp2
bd8f777d0e5489c25f854bfe856e321a
7dfb2cd2786c8ceac084334a41024fb3915383a8
3963 F20101118_AABQIP manganyi_t_Page_142.txt
4249428130826e6cc6424b086d8348e5
a12b936c58c6afa413ea1bdd32fb7e5dd7846940
162 F20101118_AABRLS manganyi_t_Page_057.txt
c0ca7b9dfefd0e70c698026bd4fbbdb4
a19147c8c2f6c53abd54e8f527002def1aad87ad
120213 F20101118_AABQIQ manganyi_t_Page_109.jp2
03bec443bbdf80f86ad89525adafc427
08541758a281f08a6c7f46609737eee1f6f33d90
2028 F20101118_AABRMH manganyi_t_Page_080.txt
eeb13030442422b70edf1235cd16b42f
6130538faaec38d3893b270bd98720006b573282
2030 F20101118_AABRLT manganyi_t_Page_061.txt
5bfa217170ea5eea23765c3b79389ce5
b923038d725ff543799262f569785ed9f71e181e
26375 F20101118_AABQJF manganyi_t_Page_038.QC.jpg
fd7d33fbbf9033bed0a147edc6ce3904
ee0d9899fe9857bd0359420d843b655f180eeef9
39450 F20101118_AABQIR manganyi_t_Page_098.pro
1453d732c59699db23b0be88f49c1218
e4be6bcbcc8b2ee84ca3bcc0cecdba3de8c5bd28
2124 F20101118_AABRMI manganyi_t_Page_081.txt
65f119bb1255def501f22ddfa08f635c
33ff3ecd614912df92a906a5bf2c8493ee69bcbc
2122 F20101118_AABRLU manganyi_t_Page_062.txt
808381312b0a18227f1164b48478c31d
1d5601877c29de31aafaa28740c8bc6cefee2ed7
F20101118_AABQJG manganyi_t_Page_077.tif
3245b655a84fcd6a65d184d61395581a
a3a975fee6f7eafd7882a31c6d593fe36342bfc0
27453 F20101118_AABQIS manganyi_t_Page_063.QC.jpg
f3cede0c4593358ccb7e73e76c0fbe7c
1314473fdb84625eab8abdd0e99f7127481617c7
2299 F20101118_AABRMJ manganyi_t_Page_082.txt
70b723d2caf649320c8b634f76939337
12ad4704b9f90cd2b28cd8956b653c6afdc1fd28
2166 F20101118_AABRLV manganyi_t_Page_063.txt
911e3718b2a36a1985423aa5fe4e3cfa
88b2cfe5c95d55166412bea20724244c435f5940
116280 F20101118_AABQJH manganyi_t_Page_117.jp2
27842ce71be2328fbba4a676098229d4
1937635b27ff24a3edfebea3946e24a6bcee159a
536 F20101118_AABQIT manganyi_t_Page_157.txt
dc5f72b6795e29981ec45daf7d27b186
44590fd51007f0c2f7ec785cf1f8f47c4766f36f
F20101118_AABRMK manganyi_t_Page_085.txt
ee41548a57904fd3a36833272d0d4119
0b8566e83931f198d238cd5db4bee92dacbcae84
F20101118_AABRLW manganyi_t_Page_065.txt
0bef7ba0b321c9a4af47f5ffb9c8777f
2182335577c9f1c83973c1cc8206aee7d8758bd1
55246 F20101118_AABQJI manganyi_t_Page_037.pro
7bec8ea5c32c321d3ad86031ea5661c9
341cf811e1c09c7381a84399d202cb388a888c0e
2196 F20101118_AABQIU manganyi_t_Page_111.txt
5b083d1bc4e195e5e6e4536e5563d7b8
f76649ea90c1162bd08f5617abf68d6ba850b210
1962 F20101118_AABRNA manganyi_t_Page_130.txt
3a7470ad870914696238e97408d1feb8
54583ddd05bff7898503a487d886e39c9613f07e
F20101118_AABRML manganyi_t_Page_087.txt
bfcb56fd6e617acdd14e50eb30fc66fb
07fc848cca8f14c1027714ece45d1e63f84b070e
F20101118_AABRLX manganyi_t_Page_066.txt
a25ceb85da48661c93d86345f7530779
9bf6ca49c13405450dc1f811f2c6de9816570b5a
115846 F20101118_AABQJJ manganyi_t_Page_065.jp2
44d1244c472ddf96973fe04dfb5d7839
ef83871c01990647df1c40725c4f752e9ffbc975
30833 F20101118_AABQIV manganyi_t_Page_188.QC.jpg
9f4c46a18edbcfc80de41cb69883bdc3
d22ffb5de0d612966b2e4491807a07ff720c7812
1875 F20101118_AABRNB manganyi_t_Page_131.txt
53e7e66159870eafbbed428d1ca86942
ae2577635686993e3fbea02c4886ed335c2c0e1b
F20101118_AABRMM manganyi_t_Page_088.txt
c280fa27bf4608791097dd755c00ec9f
f03f2d374cbbc392e64b5890a3e77905bc5dc284
2036 F20101118_AABRLY manganyi_t_Page_068.txt
f29161216d8cb244eee68b1467d9dd71
f284110d19ff6f3aa606944bfbd0cb90c565db9b
15987 F20101118_AABQJK manganyi_t_Page_095.QC.jpg
71d40b33c3a95c2d0bafa2dd818b85d9
b08c90966c37943f1c6a2ca9da29ef5bc91a7116
25150 F20101118_AABQIW manganyi_t_Page_099.pro
c13f3027a740bad58696758faea343cc
e023b924e4e960828364ab7e49a57786e33b1edf
2161 F20101118_AABRNC manganyi_t_Page_132.txt
0f151053ce354083165fd04371bbc686
0a98a934730fff5a17b20145820fe3e7ee2cea78
F20101118_AABRMN manganyi_t_Page_089.txt
80bbb7a36809acf3ea858e908ef38976
4de3e06d70e37aec3b9370e1aead0e7d08045176
2010 F20101118_AABRLZ manganyi_t_Page_071.txt
f236894c34fcd4122ddfc206a9121753
229cd3296a14381bf88c06f942b8636d5f23f261
6543 F20101118_AABQJL manganyi_t_Page_112thm.jpg
60410bf1b993a1513ecbe146fdbdd14e
52c95f5257dec325e0bdc9a43695e9e68f7555be
89022 F20101118_AABQIX manganyi_t_Page_007.jpg
d26d04e596a7ede3f0611dbbff64d58a
8916fe6e7542d1bcb796eafa2c2c83adf6ff55d9
52945 F20101118_AABQKA manganyi_t_Page_004.pro
af2b7c54254b5f3251d50810366681ee
6820c3e8a465255c0faecb0d8b2fffff07ec1a5b
2130 F20101118_AABRND manganyi_t_Page_134.txt
8d083526fbbc8f2a83a7cd8623f3caab
fab610575713086eab9b2cd2dcc6a627dfe913f7
1111 F20101118_AABRMO manganyi_t_Page_094.txt
58bb875c5e46ab9b358619b075d2a90c
6c19f08a85348c4b762bbaae02e66f8c29a002dd
26698 F20101118_AABQJM manganyi_t_Page_173.QC.jpg
0baa9d905fac31367769f4f1fdfe4428
dc0bc8d1ded7472fe4284f2d84323119867d9d8c
61986 F20101118_AABQIY manganyi_t_Page_191.pro
f067e1725e1e2f3aba28231d900a0b26
3d7711b5d82265389c71c14f13cf1071280ca0fe
24804 F20101118_AABQKB manganyi_t_Page_001.jpg
0851d35817c15aa326143e332142416f
df85814630385c56fa0033a4391eba32053a9afd
2162 F20101118_AABRNE manganyi_t_Page_137.txt
3925ea1a8df2e0ed94b7606943abcebd
f20ca379aed1635d8b836e4c65287939fe7134f1
F20101118_AABRMP manganyi_t_Page_095.txt
566dc99230fda2e24acbbbedc0af323b
fe4519c81fec2ad4c60b28739b95323c54e24d18
3800 F20101118_AABQJN manganyi_t_Page_159thm.jpg
654de0528feb0ca93ae67aad40356e34
f844c56016848d35e3658932f23155acaf4fddc5
55169 F20101118_AABQIZ manganyi_t_Page_029.pro
78986e750e13cb7d47ab6fea81cf9d94
e5c40e7d394f243038409bf45c1639c4582a0b81
27215 F20101118_AABQKC manganyi_t_Page_154.QC.jpg
83c668c0175b1b7a5869a38522a92634
fffce239077d74580a0b0b2f86f069cf2483a8a9
2064 F20101118_AABRNF manganyi_t_Page_138.txt
48b27fe6c7b181933dea46b6cd9d514d
37a9586c7a97912b3ece05c4e0c735f18f8b6274
733 F20101118_AABRMQ manganyi_t_Page_102.txt
05b39200ed2c45e1619f59d4c14bda31
9b56e015dd2bc5548a0b1b724590ab670adf3d5b
94956 F20101118_AABQJO manganyi_t_Page_029.jpg
1200596439a877f85a49532df3b710e0
01ac075243b6e18f3816effa87505a2ec0b36c8a
1985 F20101118_AABQKD manganyi_t_Page_116.txt
c1ea51c9e5d58b993d0fdd487ccbc906
92b8d42a2f373a5261f4dc2ff9c0f9081b00427e
2415 F20101118_AABRNG manganyi_t_Page_139.txt
c52f2d2547cba43f02f1f4b3d62ca17b
daca659a72bba20499b48858cd1c3b5fe84b1761
727 F20101118_AABRMR manganyi_t_Page_103.txt
39c530b4d1a2bf998574284c575aa418
95771483f2f609fa8243a64b9d8b0ec9be64ecc8
53980 F20101118_AABQJP manganyi_t_Page_165.jpg
c9674c5128efda694a5f7e845d2462b7
d18e39007a6a56b0c9b73146e9247746a20f043b
F20101118_AABQKE manganyi_t_Page_090.tif
a0232658aebaa6dca5991213cd1fb5da
53be573e8df54d12bba863cd7a84ffd47ae9c5d8
1326 F20101118_AABRNH manganyi_t_Page_144.txt
27e9a7475c6c5deb139679096dc4f0d2
a475866dd82a4b65ef2410ba17a132050b34e76d
918 F20101118_AABRMS manganyi_t_Page_104.txt
1f6ecc73ccc8b3e9014ef96d96a7c139
9dd33b5e44b071e1e363a65f7c108e4012e4fcd6
5184 F20101118_AABQJQ manganyi_t_Page_100thm.jpg
b757374ee9476060ff069fb10115e944
a11e70f71519043bc918b2d61686437893841b48
126006 F20101118_AABQKF manganyi_t_Page_118.jp2
2b52b69120f12b38c460f3ad969c5c37
634a4166bfae4eaeb2a51be2864192b0f8036c0c
2131 F20101118_AABRMT manganyi_t_Page_106.txt
76aa201d08ede81b53d319ba3215d471
b5439b9018550ed40147c99136451e1f15f2a9c9
71929 F20101118_AABQJR manganyi_t_Page_095.jp2
702dba13ac43450c20429c6c53ea3d47
31c74e952a7d3d0e2b69d432a21abc808d66e0a1
1144 F20101118_AABRNI manganyi_t_Page_145.txt
6a762eea7e4ec85c20fe4dc8594ec990
0d3e38063e5e1d56f1394ece45171e1d64d37aac
2057 F20101118_AABRMU manganyi_t_Page_107.txt
a3f9d3f57bc01e2c65bcd4574a5ed257
e589a2c99b864aeef1c265e9a76a5d0a5a4da444
11752 F20101118_AABQJS manganyi_t_Page_097.QC.jpg
01a1bac735e47a65297c161c06925f80
3519b639cb2edfd5f3ac2e1c0435ea5d3f73e802
1351 F20101118_AABQKG manganyi_t_Page_150.txt
d4da59f6c1361c02eb132e9b32d83187
0dd34c45f652e8e417f953f6d3602d0380c2bab1
966 F20101118_AABRNJ manganyi_t_Page_146.txt
d1af58003b79896bbd9045208a59f461
4bc38f71ec5e75589fb6987f2939a54a56ebc0a0
2129 F20101118_AABRMV manganyi_t_Page_113.txt
2a984a9494ab2fdede2a4f9b9c624510
870c1da5c73d919d4c623b827df530e68634cf44
2211 F20101118_AABQJT manganyi_t_Page_029.txt
6015ebf5928958d34a3deddb8514020a
0ab8971eb48eb4299980e261f92f4c733e2cdaef
26207 F20101118_AABQKH manganyi_t_Page_094.pro
689677863775681be97f7b14dc1ba410
f777ab41416965a901c4f3ca2cfe599ea22139e7
1176 F20101118_AABRNK manganyi_t_Page_148.txt
81e8590be7b34adaf2102fcb658516f5
f5a18d809cbab6e350f65cc92e036454f258ad1c
F20101118_AABRMW manganyi_t_Page_114.txt
d59a57510aafd3172c7766673c3bfc9c
0f7339b0e866e7a4cee19f3e8f2e567c6091ca5d
56106 F20101118_AABQJU manganyi_t_Page_073.pro
c76e0a0987374044bcb844b9bddbeb54
4ca4ad8cb3d135a7f3c4643d639f3f127d18dfff
6291 F20101118_AABQKI manganyi_t_Page_036thm.jpg
4bd0f78f1ebedd28d625375c7637ae02
2a0cc9c5897177b2bf898964c19f5ca8917d0f8c
441 F20101118_AABROA manganyi_t_Page_182.txt
e74554f276f8b2ed4032b68554993348
c789c6d5c5d16d53dbc0407735ea2ae56730b326
1165 F20101118_AABRNL manganyi_t_Page_149.txt
bf8a6ae3cb8f02b8859fed6729355f7a
6b87d82941dd53401c0fc0daba186552f6426af0
2176 F20101118_AABRMX manganyi_t_Page_115.txt
021a399094f89e7ff5a9a5395464211d
2e02c7e11c2fcab11a42d9528f7c20a02214fda1
2859 F20101118_AABQJV manganyi_t_Page_057.pro
cdd4c450781c462849d3c06b1aaa8a76
c9ed07220d02036b5af596a2895a226830e0ce83
21302 F20101118_AABQKJ manganyi_t_Page_146.pro
3329753ae1ffc0597a1857ad6b8a0566
7a135fc7a17c61e3aa5559461bee30b8c0d6ae00
2446 F20101118_AABROB manganyi_t_Page_183.txt
393b9ddf481d5d4b659314fd0f6b65b3
74a9a25ccac163180b59f88e9016a037012c7aba
981 F20101118_AABRNM manganyi_t_Page_151.txt
527b3d442539c85b3c2d2e1ffdb6f024
7aec2beec67360398034a2d668bb27c5726a8bc2
1956 F20101118_AABRMY manganyi_t_Page_128.txt
7b8ad0086aa4e7f9cd05d562400327b7
01163045c3c8c92f498aac25b710be785ed44542
F20101118_AABQJW manganyi_t_Page_171.tif
44e169763b24868b0698f165322ed027
58a5cd5bfc5faab3cac3790a224e6c803394917b
5839 F20101118_AABQKK manganyi_t_Page_008thm.jpg
f06a103e867d94f16cdc6a43d2dd376d
b50efcf5c5f18d9ae7e9211bfca8f2592cc31106
2471 F20101118_AABROC manganyi_t_Page_185.txt
ffdf9915a1083c74e9135474c8275b87
14781e1bc440e581e7708b59cf58f78198360377
F20101118_AABRNN manganyi_t_Page_153.txt
e848d6595ef136039ee54b6dd4db9bde
f67f8decb51a896dfc9b15145b5dc7e7f94a832a
F20101118_AABRMZ manganyi_t_Page_129.txt
2e3c167e3881fafec52d60d835e03071
8265368e5565a6eb7d531868ba9ef1f298148393
29273 F20101118_AABQJX manganyi_t_Page_175.QC.jpg
b3104967656a9d79005c70b07054381d
8d0724e098571df572d1937dbdcfc36ac52c78fb
F20101118_AABQLA manganyi_t_Page_114.tif
68da495187e8868ea9edb9f6ba379e01
be8cf500f84568550be9112427e3efc4788a9133
70177 F20101118_AABQKL manganyi_t_Page_155.jpg
6b76a0c57354a1d99e5d9369c27a62b1
27d072361fbc98018d543fe40e980d2d290b1138
2353 F20101118_AABROD manganyi_t_Page_187.txt
a3b7a9e2643b41cbf6d5c82af4ec80c4
e2394ec9a01e455461392f8a146f58f161483f60
2614 F20101118_AABRNO manganyi_t_Page_154.txt
fbb45a44d9c16b1831f63ae0049ea6bc
36d1d87926fa0d42ce8754c2338a2731e4cb172d
16500 F20101118_AABQJY manganyi_t_Page_144.QC.jpg
8e6f32bc6c35b1380a1d4fc46acb3b6c
4a4431d852029f9a183e4c76e104510c62b32db5
11047 F20101118_AABQLB manganyi_t_Page_171.pro
00d2ae034b0b7420c456a76b9c1dc728
49bbab2ebc04c9bf7136b2d8837b417a27f55dc4
26978 F20101118_AABQKM manganyi_t_Page_050.QC.jpg
f9fa438256f1599902a2db828f289f2c
87b52e7b1f102c3e8004c8e9980238d2d88c3102
2628 F20101118_AABROE manganyi_t_Page_188.txt
d2261667c456c15c6710aa98785da15f
f034b63b472520e6dcc248f46667e705a6b89b70
1902 F20101118_AABRNP manganyi_t_Page_155.txt
56e0b01253ee05ec5eb4e319ab035798
7f3239df928afec196970732a54d820f9d540408
53789 F20101118_AABQJZ manganyi_t_Page_066.pro
2ee1b6440ca89edfcd1cb4a7d1316291
afafe19ecf169d8fb0153eaece909d22dfcf445a
F20101118_AABQLC manganyi_t_Page_178.tif
c7f4f8d9e33712db7d83da70d408e769
0f3c349298f6bd3961d5d60ac94b56d75df14846
89151 F20101118_AABQKN manganyi_t_Page_026.jpg
55511c3c58a0d80544f277aabb4210cd
3e8e0f2ea614c4a5dd302008fa68a6b2383124c1
2883 F20101118_AABROF manganyi_t_Page_190.txt
5165d7e722b0194dd28c3c28082317b5
264111ba5f4562db5294b1f5ac640103e143c3e9
1195 F20101118_AABRNQ manganyi_t_Page_162.txt
88be0d9ceb775af2e99ec991fbf1f409
64ed558077f88bb296f5c97f99b1d33fd59bfc1f
6393 F20101118_AABQLD manganyi_t_Page_154thm.jpg
a97de0e4e3fb6f4f94a5ae8ab87e0474
bafc5130f283b037a0cab1ff3aa879a401dc5e8e
660078 F20101118_AABQKO manganyi_t_Page_012.jp2
6a04819bbcade9b36aa6a8efc0909c16
ba19682dbb0186ae6fbe6f83271cab790a8ed769
F20101118_AABROG manganyi_t_Page_192.txt
a830a4daea8b10c2d106159e40eb5e32
49e4041b96c81a8e22db9f671ad801c2aa8cef64
F20101118_AABRNR manganyi_t_Page_163.txt
57fcbb1bc8c5384a305ceab3445ecf4e
3aef4e56015a21179bd4f594885c4481248a0966
F20101118_AABQLE manganyi_t_Page_127.tif
9c68a45d590414d63c2d652ceed8b2e0
663ea944489ec5e95ba6cbdab20c394038b0cc50
6331 F20101118_AABQKP manganyi_t_Page_132thm.jpg
a1b46b74825e060b5a8b1931eb92012a
1b874d444ce571f0c5fb71a746fda75f4395be45
F20101118_AABROH manganyi_t_Page_193.txt
d731fb27c48d558af7cb637fe838b51b
c2dfb3263b4ab87917e04949c900d30a311ccbac
1255 F20101118_AABRNS manganyi_t_Page_166.txt
58b1ee11f8ea55bf0a63da75dbaf7062
f456c313d5558f1fcc0d16c95434d38f50784987
2495 F20101118_AABQLF manganyi_t_Page_102thm.jpg
f809d685f26536704ac771431bd5eb9d
fcbb0019177c4579375b5c96a3821d8a3d73cada
F20101118_AABQKQ manganyi_t_Page_046.tif
be8cc8833abbb841125b11e0993fbc3a
5e1d446d74d1075d2c9b3c045ea88186568044a6
2550 F20101118_AABROI manganyi_t_Page_194.txt
8c4ce6fadd1ee117c4020b46485f7187
481758aac9cb39d488a391def225fc0907e8b98b
2048 F20101118_AABRNT manganyi_t_Page_168.txt
d318ee4c21130ccaf581ab1a8fcbe0d2
5838f5624dc34844162761b56f7afdf90858826f
51426 F20101118_AABQLG manganyi_t_Page_129.pro
cf75e48c8d93536630f9e7308246502b
864ce04d5b1373e9c3e3fc6439e2a61acd49c5c1
5282 F20101118_AABQKR manganyi_t_Page_013thm.jpg
1380b089d2fa4b1cf54a24f0f91d71c8
da896051941fa991ce72cea95992b2f21646b759
1971 F20101118_AABRNU manganyi_t_Page_169.txt
7e66469c95eb8df3fcb21f80db4be0c4
1905dfcec2ebcae3b8892a27e46d7ecc9c2e240b
F20101118_AABQKS manganyi_t_Page_143.tif
c472c19fc54645e89bdbac7394aca1f5
85cf60689bcc06e5f92501f56da5fd135b1398d1
1094 F20101118_AABROJ manganyi_t_Page_196.txt
4abe914c3bd8bc3db8c88f0e7576af75
dfee698a7a6994d98ce202f1402db86cfda7e5d8
438 F20101118_AABRNV manganyi_t_Page_171.txt
4cac79763350b075cef96248b49d49a2
59a805c7eb8f4f7d320ce23c54fc416902ae0594
51148 F20101118_AABQLH manganyi_t_Page_086.pro
255c2ab1587622ba392450700b80a6d3
160f349b88f62c07d4597eb52ab1561a9eccb9a1
4971 F20101118_AABQKT manganyi_t_Page_155thm.jpg
23b6410aef81ba2c7b77658120ae6d40
e3208241cf31e383e39a57bbab947a3fd7580ab1
1765 F20101118_AABROK manganyi_t_Page_001thm.jpg
83b73a019bd16e13cd9661458dbbcba1
edd00e8acb38a4e1181aa8a810a0dc11e6604960
F20101118_AABRNW manganyi_t_Page_176.txt
a5e4e81c39f0b41b23889ff3f682e444
2dfb70080de02ed9d87c17ae5bcc7a0cf211e8e7
90762 F20101118_AABQLI manganyi_t_Page_110.jpg
31b4a6c478c237d40ed4b5cfb27c6c9a
b4a1eea85a5180285fd9bb2d65519dca62167999
94314 F20101118_AABQKU manganyi_t_Page_172.jpg
2b5e89cb6d62e06ed23ab086fdb0b71b
e63df921e0ca79da3f1029d74474a89f14389c64
6433 F20101118_AABRPA manganyi_t_Page_022thm.jpg
af22e0f1fff05cb94cc8558366c0cb26
a3aa3f8281a7f293cdd83e2f8cc172a03bbeab8a
901950 F20101118_AABROL manganyi_t.pdf
0c38cea196b9ab2602411bb91f1379b0
c77ee48070528b917fcb20bffd0e42ed6e421314
2133 F20101118_AABRNX manganyi_t_Page_178.txt
99336ff6aeaa12c5b35631edbd3dacc5
514b73661ccc7a179b9f38be6b108de85271c872
116673 F20101118_AABQLJ manganyi_t_Page_190.jpg
314289e5e622133e27daad336142e962
a1574d79dc2cfe968c56d42f2ff9b89d5d5fe26f
1763 F20101118_AABQKV manganyi_t_Page_003.QC.jpg
f00495a6ca557191511820b9fd184de9
1bcf5c0da432e39955bbd16b857296b2167aae4a
6816 F20101118_AABRPB manganyi_t_Page_023thm.jpg
0796bad0b382d010008290c9bda46b9c
f92619addd834aeb7cb870d33e4bce5ff9737d4b
1180 F20101118_AABROM manganyi_t_Page_002.QC.jpg
910cfab5a765375c28610d7dce14c0d7
4aaf7f927b7199cb02d6e07ef033ae798016e01b
1969 F20101118_AABRNY manganyi_t_Page_179.txt
8c47ebe1ee71f813b948f20b07a7aa6a
20299fc6f5eaecb413ddf777be7b3035b298e9fa
27612 F20101118_AABQLK manganyi_t_Page_108.QC.jpg
858777c6e2d8265deff549c297818bf8
2c8d5835c38bf0be4c445d338013377d5fb07446
14364 F20101118_AABQKW manganyi_t_Page_145.QC.jpg
c019aedb95d013b83a5bf839ac1b2d28
aa511554062d93e3d7bef17a38264df16cb6420b
27152 F20101118_AABRPC manganyi_t_Page_023.QC.jpg
098059d08b765181e770f16f47b80d91
b18ccef7c1e2f75dfdb5a8d7c1a8d2df3506dcf6
27342 F20101118_AABRON manganyi_t_Page_004.QC.jpg
152f8c7d7ad3ac5fac079fbf2521346f
5067463273671b72f55762d53dc23f54ac2d3ba2
1996 F20101118_AABRNZ manganyi_t_Page_180.txt
0e1d28eb618a9ab91fd5d15e296599cd
8c1cebf0f8508c7c326d9ac588a11af726086a20
54013 F20101118_AABQMA manganyi_t_Page_081.pro
3234beadb6ff63357ee5b39143488565
16625ece344847fcd4908bf231807f98c9e90797
121661 F20101118_AABQLL manganyi_t_Page_040.jp2
92bfaf807237d91d6c7d5e517b682741
ff006b12b0470b48c30d5bd4b92904d0678d8ee5
119079 F20101118_AABQKX manganyi_t_Page_053.jp2
45aaced1c26b6b71b88f8738d46637cf
e0591b359931566f0b772fbdd60eb688cf97f2d4
6556 F20101118_AABRPD manganyi_t_Page_024thm.jpg
334041e59cfa0d1e438591cfc54113c3
8b183ff1678357cb2377fc2158fb43630bc0833c
1348 F20101118_AABROO manganyi_t_Page_006thm.jpg
0e298e08acf7752bd4b8d197985822c5
b9ef3732c06ff98f24e20bbdea5da92f1748d760
113813 F20101118_AABQMB manganyi_t_Page_124.jp2
3105c20a2b889923efa6b47ae7d2a75e
fd460a7704a3c5c948f6407e57b73b63f867bd8e
5958 F20101118_AABQLM manganyi_t_Page_010thm.jpg
9e3cb1da58976b5c31388353a7f9856a
3feca9d8003b9a7a6b7e68ced5330267b885f707
29454 F20101118_AABQKY manganyi_t_Page_176.QC.jpg
d1501a8eec77b0595ce50cff2b55d1c4
c27844c9c2971fee22eab9e0d523dd4ec153f2e9
28443 F20101118_AABRPE manganyi_t_Page_025.QC.jpg
d6a8734cc13b92c648d415d3fb90c5d8
6fa09c55331049b77f5528b93a71d774079a8e97
4468 F20101118_AABROP manganyi_t_Page_006.QC.jpg
d1606c19956986dfc2b6fb9a85fca1d3
2d3bc3806be4212a55e919053243f1ccf1f9b809
2205 F20101118_AABQMC manganyi_t_Page_120.txt
9e8feba4dd1b0980148b8ff61cfdc6b7
5aaa8ed079273e940ff65a1d7eb976a39d0589c7
22210 F20101118_AABQLN manganyi_t_Page_171.jpg
e031598ebcafbce58a183d1d330fd5ff
d88e7743d07c538cd88798caa4d24a0d9be0de15
84082 F20101118_AABQKZ manganyi_t_Page_027.jpg
6aad26d617b4964066d895459bec276e
3f09026f1e9300a8737eb419160da8001bd7dd73
6563 F20101118_AABRPF manganyi_t_Page_026thm.jpg
ce1a7b95b023af670d1330211caf9f68
9e967ffc42f1cecadded91d6a18d25438883173d
4875 F20101118_AABROQ manganyi_t_Page_007thm.jpg
267789793d6e845cb8dc24696d5e34b5
c397124eb7a96d99a5e2243636486266d8dcd305
1051982 F20101118_AABQMD manganyi_t_Page_007.jp2
59e2b8cd5e8e8b31855c57acbd181502
3a657197085f7ec90cb5bbca8053e21b966bdc56
116087 F20101118_AABQLO manganyi_t_Page_050.jp2
4288a5631ea8c4fdca0032c2302c6e1c
cf49f0f59ea44d7c78a93bf829edbbf618501e62
6361 F20101118_AABRPG manganyi_t_Page_028thm.jpg
169772774c2adb4b52c9ef2c481934bc
2707e262357224df566ae15d1d6c5d87c5f48b85
25256 F20101118_AABROR manganyi_t_Page_008.QC.jpg
60428276d480e177f51f21dfcf9be29a
5b29b1439899fd1e68134281ef6e5b650c7cb183
26901 F20101118_AABQME manganyi_t_Page_062.QC.jpg
96e6a14c7726ef4dc4f937f737ef42f0
eb11d612c0b12eb738f2ee269ba8dfdcd5753138
1197 F20101118_AABQLP manganyi_t_Page_159.txt
c4cea57ec738664f53e3eae179353c95
5bcd8df1ebd9a912aa724944d0e3ed8b3b3c26a5
29846 F20101118_AABRPH manganyi_t_Page_029.QC.jpg
69054d52ee6e1bdd7da045ad67047318
10929c78ae62a565a35dae5315a7d527a2c6ebcf
22059 F20101118_AABROS manganyi_t_Page_013.QC.jpg
ea1294ebf372a4e4dab5dc570fe4fbb5
8b737743b57585200cf58e7b5811b7ff232a9457
121122 F20101118_AABQMF manganyi_t_Page_008.jpg
72498faab3cea4f765391a3612f7fe4a
ae6e3e04373412456c9e2be55d296492cdfb6fc2
F20101118_AABQLQ manganyi_t_Page_055.tif
05a9a22f15ce56fe7acc81b0a83758f5
ff8cb8d7c0180321151cd6043001d2061d5f53b3
26120 F20101118_AABRPI manganyi_t_Page_030.QC.jpg
a6c443ea03dc3589a877c6d7d591d480
47f990dc18b18fafce75dedcb48d2858004da1c1
3634 F20101118_AABROT manganyi_t_Page_014thm.jpg
162416408121a8d91fe63b57b04d7db8
267da0601a91d435c4539db9bded59d2185df52b
2118 F20101118_AABQMG manganyi_t_Page_135.txt
be778bc38862f8b82f0300b94ccf4c0c
065d2dfcb96f6207238ea18081d165a7ba9d7242
3088 F20101118_AABQLR manganyi_t_Page_195.QC.jpg
517040603caa23df7209dc7964f2f5f4
100f266744ce2e8a58cc4b28afe602ee167c8c60
20906 F20101118_AABRPJ manganyi_t_Page_031.QC.jpg
acd4ea2d40a3bcca75a25c188e36cd1f
5fe25265e6d7aa83d519ad80c906bccb24824699
25839 F20101118_AABROU manganyi_t_Page_015.QC.jpg
e383739ce9add1b1fce52c297e4bda80
875a5f95626aab324578e4dcf649c5267d7cdb3b
56172 F20101118_AABQMH manganyi_t_Page_109.pro
34f4efa6b2648bb718943bc2c0c37fff
14626cb9db09287d8f4ad88b70cfed7c5da72c09
51852 F20101118_AABQLS manganyi_t_Page_044.pro
b467e4db72b8e1358c1acdb433ad97f9
0c7715c663ff7abfa3a0fc5ce6f0993e5312c276
6892 F20101118_AABROV manganyi_t_Page_016thm.jpg
050b62e7d5f71fd36b4acc75d61557f5
79e81b9698424b19b5144e45b1744fc2ad6e05df
112837 F20101118_AABQLT manganyi_t_Page_068.jp2
c52731030f2b223f001c1075411cb6e2
764d44960fa0196529c8c5a6aab4a1b51a78206b
3087 F20101118_AABRPK manganyi_t_Page_032thm.jpg
4afdfbebd82b6bf9adea8e017da9c33f
eee979c9198ce1a065a83934962af8445c985cb1
29845 F20101118_AABROW manganyi_t_Page_016.QC.jpg
4f54e3d4ae4285d1ccf10fbde0b6fe73
a70fe3268eb5785bdc4573f1844b00c3f1c37909
87898 F20101118_AABQMI manganyi_t_Page_066.jpg
db9f9fbd8ce34e5952a49e8b9cb5cb32
199a35363593314d7bb8939326d96d9f994089a5
1809 F20101118_AABQLU manganyi_t_Page_031.txt
b31cc246a64a737145e9b20939d0cc54
c6c0be62a76e5ff1ffce753e125c8a5f27bd2c55
27193 F20101118_AABRQA manganyi_t_Page_048.QC.jpg
d57794f69b3844cbb80c5351cb383080
cf4d13a382bd82691763cdf153e631dd22ef7c97
9122 F20101118_AABRPL manganyi_t_Page_032.QC.jpg
0068aaa4f48a8cfd79886707fbe1dfff
d32347f2003b55f875da091b9ef4414580d7ee7d
6601 F20101118_AABROX manganyi_t_Page_019thm.jpg
c33e805e4329a41864bf47a9ea3d1c9c
8dd1c654f8554442ddd36879931f2267d558c420
44086 F20101118_AABQMJ manganyi_t_Page_143.jpg
58d474f728054031c17252bb3fc83afb
0a685755d7c799e027b81fc7355cc121b736aa26
27158 F20101118_AABQLV manganyi_t_Page_088.QC.jpg
62f7759dfa6fbcc9a26006c4b2a7b3d2
f0d5e6c6e8d4bc2b5fc8e292f6c826634868c84a
6647 F20101118_AABRQB manganyi_t_Page_049thm.jpg
94df1015354093ed791e9cf13f514968
b71e1ae2b17f17e5228d0fc193db7064292b6507
6332 F20101118_AABRPM manganyi_t_Page_034thm.jpg
ec6a323317896985a0cccd7452a47dc1
1189c850c392c89cf7a98e416813ba439a154036
F20101118_AABROY manganyi_t_Page_020.QC.jpg
3cd10169f61749f8dd7451793dc81dfa
71dc9c84d84189e544700f110c7b4331935cdfeb
49269 F20101118_AABQMK manganyi_t_Page_015.pro
7acce9126a2876e35d289b46c99d109e
a9071175f89be73c7235ded59b6c445ef8745475
88616 F20101118_AABQLW manganyi_t_Page_052.jpg
f1deb722831d4b9d984acdd48e8d33d2
6f17dee0cf211c4b08c08a0aff34a8fda49c0314
6449 F20101118_AABRQC manganyi_t_Page_050thm.jpg
a3e84914a95d3da2f6d111b5754e7bbe
3f2a2373ec98f6e3b045b18870ae19e5b00acac7
27257 F20101118_AABRPN manganyi_t_Page_034.QC.jpg
ed2082cc670c13ce2c5881b78c4b2489
115fb9b2ebd350bffd0372f02e3d4e8146633e6c
28624 F20101118_AABROZ manganyi_t_Page_021.QC.jpg
f2a6098fd17e00af5f20356dc63a34ba
2293caec22d99027e20f0b744bed3f84b890c74d
1748 F20101118_AABQML manganyi_t_Page_103thm.jpg
d5268d5367432d66697cef2bc1531bd1
a1270b813ec297162879781a393ef8950ec89ab9
6889 F20101118_AABQLX manganyi_t_Page_085thm.jpg
7fe18fbcf58b37a759cb443de8edc67b
faf03db998c08e687b6102a2049f8d0dde9bd603
6558 F20101118_AABQNA manganyi_t_Page_123thm.jpg
882d3f5485ab52970f641acab6a1eda0
fd55a3252f15843b00ea9996c1f3e48b41196844
6703 F20101118_AABRQD manganyi_t_Page_051thm.jpg
6ba7507b1d3328254bb6b50844c65896
b974dca0d883b03492c015ed3531558c2d66cc34
27836 F20101118_AABRPO manganyi_t_Page_036.QC.jpg
2212bbc564c84f5fc44171ab6a17d4ef
3e3cf90637be5aebf17179bdb8d48acfc0a5f5a4
F20101118_AABQMM manganyi_t_Page_012.tif
4ce2e1cf8b4940c5296a20b6d57617b1
3954ddd61e79069c9e0b0f45d466949edd5977c6
19560 F20101118_AABQLY manganyi_t_Page_155.QC.jpg
bddc62832ae30b22b62945751340e996
c04596d5dcc7851b34197c7313bce436f59a2ba3
6651 F20101118_AABQNB manganyi_t_Page_018thm.jpg
3cf76e4ce5d946ce2e7be344747aac0b
5827577dcaf0ca356ae1fbf728f94695f4b00aea
6590 F20101118_AABRQE manganyi_t_Page_052thm.jpg
317f4d6eec510b637766056a244a3111
e77b896aadf80ec4a2fffc134f1aa73889ce5293
6272 F20101118_AABRPP manganyi_t_Page_038thm.jpg
6c3e4c1444b757bfacae6378751bb58e
beb100f1f3bca972964bab4be79d25840f9b4c4c
F20101118_AABQMN manganyi_t_Page_192.QC.jpg
e0ef89c89956933147d7cb785e0b78ab
7ff6568ae8fd1813174f804ef7943feb66b041f2
54937 F20101118_AABQLZ manganyi_t_Page_021.pro
42b535b0548758f80cc096cb268e73de
39686c7c9238b787a2213bac9f96fbd6cd6e3149
F20101118_AABQNC manganyi_t_Page_158.tif
de903ff87813ea76f64f7748ad029703
64e9ebeaf802704cf91875fb1916992ce55ad26f
27850 F20101118_AABRQF manganyi_t_Page_052.QC.jpg
84228f06c48814c138f2fbf6ab8439c1
f51c418af8f1514ee7e2746b30fbb993f2e585a0
27373 F20101118_AABRPQ manganyi_t_Page_039.QC.jpg
b33bfecc0c065e5397d94f37b15a1310
bf4ff9ca5e7a4640039bf161e70ff8ccfd20ed2c
60518 F20101118_AABQMO manganyi_t_Page_183.pro
8f0f37ad916e784df9cc19c62cd833e2
30846883afdf8a4292241ef0fd48784a5208c7d1
26177 F20101118_AABQND manganyi_t_Page_116.QC.jpg
f7a7fb172c88a8073706e00a6cc5c589
7e806449246ccb2237bbfdd0b1310f4912f67770
6704 F20101118_AABRQG manganyi_t_Page_053thm.jpg
fb3f60fb06f41f742eb4d8f12d43dea0
3a7ed0920f98848fbe7ca96b9cad1b6afa74e982
6359 F20101118_AABRPR manganyi_t_Page_041thm.jpg
c5194ce52b4e2a9654599c6604c61cf8
05568c7b291fe91b46a917ab9f84ca200c796eb4
8780 F20101118_AABQMP manganyi_t_Page_140.pro
65341629c5bb8c38c2701eda56b2b4c2
289056aa0b07ec48512fd97aaf7b54a977910f43
6493 F20101118_AABQNE manganyi_t_Page_187thm.jpg
897f790512d29086e4fb82912b45d4f5
2d23bed3098e29dba7fdb91be8958ff73d499572
28811 F20101118_AABRQH manganyi_t_Page_053.QC.jpg
296c9849c10eacc4ae8517dd9d770368
886645dbf54fec44b467d3cf9e5b358526a4d5e8
28928 F20101118_AABRPS manganyi_t_Page_042.QC.jpg
11fc4a36a69008c938a362a28339c57b
2665cd20f5832f70922e93c488e3d83882aa4832
86782 F20101118_AABQNF manganyi_t_Page_062.jpg
f9b7560dbbb8ce502737f243ec18d798
2db0de7a4999569fd515e7c16b34156ad2620c3d
F20101118_AABQMQ manganyi_t_Page_030.tif
162d9151740d432afe37c3dfcaa3df03
5c299529cdbedbfa2b877cfbb85246d1fea17c4d
6654 F20101118_AABRQI manganyi_t_Page_054thm.jpg
d3ebefcaa4f4cde47c02bb1eb06569f8
deb5c72cc17645b5b5b9d9f290493f16b3968463
6516 F20101118_AABRPT manganyi_t_Page_043thm.jpg
4b5f97e300af075a9a2b222c7bfc1f56
7e5a3b76eb9097f51ebac5db786a6cfcb843438f
F20101118_AABQNG manganyi_t_Page_137thm.jpg
2ee951f5438f821c1d1d69f979f264d5
18e9a2fd76e8bb9e3a0201ec918c855acb89a03d
83713 F20101118_AABQMR manganyi_t_Page_071.jpg
0cfcd556411dcc101f3afd1788e34e2e
ce9efe026ef15c8d1a10a1695ddd6022eb1a921d
27123 F20101118_AABRQJ manganyi_t_Page_054.QC.jpg
e6b221e0098eb6d58e9b3e29f5732797
5912479d643c0eb843b3e119870996691371a729
28732 F20101118_AABRPU manganyi_t_Page_043.QC.jpg
e82009e9f54e66ef0e2b43d7ff6edb32
587649c1d84a1465d81436a8908ddbf00901cd31
F20101118_AABQNH manganyi_t_Page_003.tif
3c10ca02ab9001bf8bef86147e10c945
e349aa3877e9daf1b01279fc1b1bf6128471a448
F20101118_AABQMS manganyi_t_Page_109.tif
2a92899c39998f3c21a3d6651885909b
22eb7d89d92357142094b865ecf42ab6b1a2ac40
5761 F20101118_AABRQK manganyi_t_Page_055.QC.jpg
21812cf5cf339d6c3a8b06dc52f4ece2
06642fca03ebd24b483315de4378aac86cba7a48
6373 F20101118_AABRPV manganyi_t_Page_044thm.jpg
015652f7a9a6d4bf944a2d032b38cb10
578a395bdda986d9ba102964e10a33e7f401bdbe
564947 F20101118_AABQNI manganyi_t_Page_079.jp2
4224657c1baf968c51aedf9802c09efa
8b265c9d01fd1128e4a06659f85e84321e0f96d6
F20101118_AABQMT manganyi_t_Page_043.tif
cac85294c4c4681f7d378696c67010a6
1c550c60f935f869c3c450aadbcf0e13732d2be3
27734 F20101118_AABRPW manganyi_t_Page_045.QC.jpg
41828448eff2128b80af35b4bc31f3a9
8bbd7b5dda7017f11388069d9b71fd060efb5fd2
81166 F20101118_AABQMU manganyi_t_Page_059.jpg
030a0ce5b3fa74c66f0a861dab21c55f
eb2e897189abf27b5c83233ec74a573c003d5bc7
6701 F20101118_AABRRA manganyi_t_Page_073thm.jpg
f489121554668f42441a1c3e5efbed5c
04374f5036765f252f97de74f0ff994730af52e4
1909 F20101118_AABRQL manganyi_t_Page_056thm.jpg
92f7bc973e0934eecfe75f5744081507
eb3a500f2df0607896ec010c6bfbafeeba1e2539
28916 F20101118_AABRPX manganyi_t_Page_046.QC.jpg
70b4d2905cd5d6d402c7a54d1e784126
37d499ea8a7970f48fb3406225c3d386c171a005
7066 F20101118_AABQNJ manganyi_t_Page_186thm.jpg
1bd82fe6792adc103097e3caacf899bc
eadf647450d7ffc9e0827e1178772e75e20271f5
864 F20101118_AABQMV manganyi_t_Page_097.txt
2ef34b9e0bcf88513277e2194ccddaae
acdf90d517f9ede165b930772d4b779f0da8dc39
5127 F20101118_AABRRB manganyi_t_Page_074thm.jpg
15ee2d3220ac6006b16c2bcd808134cc
517d3ef5a541e86c3b062ab17e5605cc5cce8a16
7293 F20101118_AABRQM manganyi_t_Page_056.QC.jpg
614a8b875b0ca7b6142c0ab7aacaa144
f4efa73e415e9db140fa7b9186e39865aa023474
27368 F20101118_AABRPY manganyi_t_Page_047.QC.jpg
b4490af5691d140421040e2a01a27075
345256ccc37a76d3ef2946033da16516d2f39897
49493 F20101118_AABQNK manganyi_t_Page_116.pro
42d3725ecba64e439d6f6faae36aad86
4162f791b4016c6b4eeb950ea54a3ef8ee73ea95
54078 F20101118_AABQMW manganyi_t_Page_144.jpg
632c5b9f01e7a57da0fabd89e9e03f93
0b692bb23b9bb8bee854905529a59fc3e6e0f243
24185 F20101118_AABRRC manganyi_t_Page_076.QC.jpg
a606010ee8612e690f81a295b4217d5d
8d33ddb229ee78041539331db0642951fbf0226f
1567 F20101118_AABRQN manganyi_t_Page_057thm.jpg
1b10b9619d57c0798ef9060fe4c4333f
5e2804a78edc76244eb88e90e7a9b4acb55382ea
6453 F20101118_AABRPZ manganyi_t_Page_048thm.jpg
86dd785faf43633b5dfa3cf2bc822109
187010530a701ce5d7546c38cf957bf42d39320a
71203 F20101118_AABQOA manganyi_t_Page_098.jpg
1def47034d3a4815dcf797cec8e44251
0e18a480769f349c0075eeef06aafa3185273fb5
69788 F20101118_AABQNL manganyi_t_Page_189.pro
80dc9d038a484a01931c80b56d2884f4
40da38c05589fe58e0edaeca0f323f0fa97df447
2089 F20101118_AABQMX manganyi_t_Page_050.txt
618d71891ee36b93489dc3687ef5748e
a34f2e563a409df1566f220c7db77a4478c45754
1597 F20101118_AABRRD manganyi_t_Page_078thm.jpg
51d745c93c57fceb87156e3992c7b1e4
5d703435d808e01b383ee99cbfc3a483475a4af8
24716 F20101118_AABRQO manganyi_t_Page_058.QC.jpg
4a5d7c6edc60ad84b8a1fc5eed7e0411
8a8e85a9a58d769754563ffd44c238fba33a3dff
75401 F20101118_AABQOB manganyi_t_Page_013.jpg
bfaf85cac6ceb379ff36aed310316f0b
ceb08726e9d613255955986cc829a74d9722be37
50355 F20101118_AABQNM manganyi_t_Page_180.pro
9b18eb11cd8b97196888c8b018f5ee6e
4c3641d4c36d69fc8a8c45ff1d65f64c924270f5
6923 F20101118_AABQMY manganyi_t_Page_092thm.jpg
0edc45cdec433c9107d7756ecd53d328
bdf1e9bd69ede7d3be31dad0b92cdd16b44b07a5
3445 F20101118_AABRRE manganyi_t_Page_079thm.jpg
cf02a5d1d6e6c2e59006164ef7fe4625
2a2c1650223f09358650aa8f7c659268aa3e5203
6205 F20101118_AABRQP manganyi_t_Page_061thm.jpg
63525a4855632069e5b8fa0dd966a8b2
9f3ecd2416cd61837c577f9abfe012fb8dde48d9
1513 F20101118_AABQOC manganyi_t_Page_055thm.jpg
262ad5c190c7473417b471f29026a3f2
504ea694731a781acaa205c0086162dba817dfde
89881 F20101118_AABQNN manganyi_t_Page_119.jpg
de9dfbb39dac204eff6ab89592cf2761
d4e0b83f96b4911360c07920c9b9383e8481707b
46626 F20101118_AABQMZ manganyi_t_Page_058.pro
bd2649bdb4fc0caf970ae7f351ba0108
092a1b7f1a5504c8583d4a0ac21dcb793e05d5c2
25781 F20101118_AABRRF manganyi_t_Page_080.QC.jpg
f8a32f4ed5025fa1f252eed403671a98
925b7f3949baac097f255e2ab75b707be64bb942
25664 F20101118_AABRQQ manganyi_t_Page_061.QC.jpg
4fffd95291643388b33ffa1035b970e1
57694fc1703283390989f8512ab9ebdceff70b26
F20101118_AABQOD manganyi_t_Page_129.tif
ad6a7b7fc057ea781268dfaded73570a
e2fd0c14847b354267b277b5e49924dca1b9ee7e
5532 F20101118_AABQNO manganyi_t_Page_078.QC.jpg
3920f22c929d860b66c66299bfeaad89
7490ec3e996bdd1d06d52a9861a2f81e9b8c7ccf
6738 F20101118_AABRRG manganyi_t_Page_081thm.jpg
0834ea365a0ab83e32e5d81278e40021
8fb2ee1eeb72e12dfa5a6a0d1ca903ab7e218301
27491 F20101118_AABRQR manganyi_t_Page_064.QC.jpg
e3477d96c1d22af50545c63e1dd0dae0
91852f9184f4e48944d3c000513aa99563bb3311
27786 F20101118_AABQOE manganyi_t_Page_115.QC.jpg
35ca75764935a73edde6eac0ef163705
687fca7d171e51308fb37afbc143cb9a2ecfae00
F20101118_AABQNP manganyi_t_Page_092.tif
693864e3da05b89344068a7961c8e177
aaa6dfe91d40d2c355220d5d61465dba2171fb32
29025 F20101118_AABRRH manganyi_t_Page_081.QC.jpg
9c1f4c33eef74a192c1dbd60e794ddd0
91c1af99af03ea065350633cd52e75f5625fe41b
6108 F20101118_AABRQS manganyi_t_Page_065thm.jpg
771256573bb490616b466e9625dfed74
16478f690fa3ab70579580b060f16cda2072d1b4
113836 F20101118_AABQOF manganyi_t_Page_062.jp2
fcfbe334fdf1a252dfad195ebe1b3e67
c1ffb14644892e5a6bf3a133d69f67b819d29147
6568 F20101118_AABQNQ manganyi_t_Page_126thm.jpg
e97b2be8d31fe29fd6a423ac904f430a
d5eeea88b93c37e0005117152fad3aeb7a34277b
7100 F20101118_AABRRI manganyi_t_Page_082thm.jpg
580a0ab4feb9ad925793574bbd76e6e5
9eb5445c05a8990cb58666229eb0c48a52f1e80a
27936 F20101118_AABRQT manganyi_t_Page_065.QC.jpg
b53edfc8df1867b4c087fd4de10e93aa
2a106b1d5d6de67353c856d94c91ed7743f12d60
2143 F20101118_AABQOG manganyi_t_Page_053.txt
74e2d8488e57f7d99f2d63fd5c69a369
afbd526cee9f25a706f011e850d73b1fca997538
32713 F20101118_AABQNR manganyi_t_Page_153.jpg
0b1b20acb59804ca67848fdc50411d25
c0f9974b2e300572ccc95599e3fb401e517b075a
5504 F20101118_AABRRJ manganyi_t_Page_083thm.jpg
9975067872552a756661fc0ecdd2dabf
1c4c9c0865a66ebde45fd2b46a243fc9ec418258
6633 F20101118_AABRQU manganyi_t_Page_066thm.jpg
eddfca8d0e591190bc6876e9a514fa9a
eb2d3260f3413daa01e2bac796f18732c3e5cc8d
F20101118_AABQOH manganyi_t_Page_161.txt
e0c1082705e5256c85e6188104033719
cea72d0bc635a2914b138ae0b60563c8ed8fe70a
53918 F20101118_AABQNS manganyi_t_Page_113.pro
a567c88a5d3142f00893fc658ea19288
1cff31418a20da0d3dc6a296b7d5ed1c82408873
6745 F20101118_AABRRK manganyi_t_Page_084thm.jpg
a92cde65edeaa5e426d9e7e29dc6ef4e
65eb03f0fec22d649e01b866a6054b092c6b46bd
6686 F20101118_AABRQV manganyi_t_Page_067thm.jpg
a5af74c619810d3e70860c34c534b8c7
064ce1f73ceb3b5a6832d13ffb1128d06192ba2a
25563 F20101118_AABQOI manganyi_t_Page_071.QC.jpg
4163a88095c6cb308aceb6ec450135b3
cb719f313c9f6f008e2cf52eb9e77147e011311b
92571 F20101118_AABQNT manganyi_t_Page_177.jpg
3abddb2e9f78a1eb4eb39ca0bc6a32b1
cf76bdbf950e3df514d69da1ed346505bfcb9689
29843 F20101118_AABRRL manganyi_t_Page_084.QC.jpg
df7f373c5b06a73831e3b3a4294ce24f
13654641888cd59727ffc77e7b79a9fe1dce1d45
28622 F20101118_AABRQW manganyi_t_Page_067.QC.jpg
62cfdcd3790961eec1a1a9b8729f1d11
35886539b1a2bfc77ab65df383eeba1c4231a665
44135 F20101118_AABQOJ manganyi_t_Page_105.jp2
3a1ae7451532b2f7b9bb1215b5d65b6a
e0c8dd6418fbdc0773ac5ca2a01192a60e3e0448
28469 F20101118_AABQNU manganyi_t_Page_092.QC.jpg
72100e1dddc783a45394b65f6d28690d
30ed7b2eeefab6ebc700cbd52af70ded5e11b6ed
18734 F20101118_AABRSA manganyi_t_Page_101.QC.jpg
74b038c51374ba5a4eaa26b9dd2212c3
c55939bbdbe94cdcd35ba2230409d0cd5e493492
27032 F20101118_AABRQX manganyi_t_Page_068.QC.jpg
ffd7bf95165d63782f3c39db187fcb7e
092f3a58c868f385583aef79fe2ee85b8c4dc707
42946 F20101118_AABQNV manganyi_t_Page_151.jpg
f04e2ecd1b46d6a7a49b43ebde838f72
8d5e195aa97c887c4791b503e82d027db6f82c9b
10036 F20101118_AABRSB manganyi_t_Page_102.QC.jpg
7464800fa696669714bf9e2125bb8249
5b84d6cd4c81b61c801511f45882beb223742a4d
28172 F20101118_AABRRM manganyi_t_Page_085.QC.jpg
4623061ef7c88d390458898e3a9ae343
3ce49863f78ca672dbe4320aaf228f92f8e1c136
F20101118_AABRQY manganyi_t_Page_070thm.jpg
b296fbf334fac827f16b885dcfe397f3
0ce572815125c510b295719107b9197044d7459b
25148 F20101118_AABQOK manganyi_t_Page_059.QC.jpg
3eee04a224fa232d339fa3287fcb97c8
51e08411412028aa62828242994757bc5b9be5f7
23382 F20101118_AABQNW manganyi_t_Page_083.QC.jpg
399d1496a084be8a9ced1d4cabca0a24
d4cfcde5bbd94ddbbf4407cee91d9ac352c81df3
6128 F20101118_AABRSC manganyi_t_Page_103.QC.jpg
e5106bdcd4f497ba9c5c1eb79ce02167
bf3bb9cdf7c48eb2aed7acdb638d73142a69efa2
6184 F20101118_AABRRN manganyi_t_Page_086thm.jpg
7b63f7d8c4398c00d8286378cc640e7d
df679dc9077e486869586426f4bb710651c7663b
28100 F20101118_AABRQZ manganyi_t_Page_072.QC.jpg
ccb53f902b585d9276aab5ecf2258c2b
e17f006c89e9a643567cf03f13533ffa0e935d17
F20101118_AABQOL manganyi_t_Page_148.tif
681d93e629a477e707626a2ed00048d0
e1a55f19aa3f6ab3724478c585cf2071403cc2d8
1051977 F20101118_AABQNX manganyi_t_Page_191.jp2
6cf819bb515a545307837c9ae37c51d5
f6d89b5ee08200301952e29912f3983cd82c7183
F20101118_AABQPA manganyi_t_Page_100.tif
5801481e2c9a03f8c70043db575d5f9f
1561064d5ba17dec6e145b020487e1afa68b56b6
8921 F20101118_AABRSD manganyi_t_Page_104.QC.jpg
64199d8d8379450eca2f1be533897137
c7d98b910829f5d0f96552c3aa91901bde60e549
26264 F20101118_AABRRO manganyi_t_Page_086.QC.jpg
da39978ac9ebc81f5938c486957dfcc5
31e4b6f19444a4cd623d66c0cbf1e031cfa0295a
2165 F20101118_AABQOM manganyi_t_Page_181.txt
aa7675d6e84c61e65b11bdf5b6537fe9
bedc548d78d0aceb955e4bce35bcf7665e9240b6
1146 F20101118_AABQNY manganyi_t_Page_158.txt
230327253e422c742de6939d8ec67800
dcc56460d39ac4bf7e67d4d1128a9da31a4f0442
6566 F20101118_AABQPB manganyi_t_Page_089thm.jpg
947ba6cce1e63619ea15511a447f116c
2e5aae2a4cf964270dc27b8f76941c11d0fa1a76
9371 F20101118_AABRSE manganyi_t_Page_105.QC.jpg
3ebc95eed8fc59b42f2b3438babdb3b8
030b0a34c4839462885709279ab741a0e175f09c
6542 F20101118_AABRRP manganyi_t_Page_087thm.jpg
70c073178ab33ecd577cf47b9a0d76aa
67f9b95f66506664f7ad83f151998a096b14bc8a
8392 F20101118_AABQON manganyi_t_Page_012.QC.jpg
23a4b7b73da79c03e4deaccda7626361
f4281af52c8b67d2ec8a90021aa2ad50f1dfbdb0
F20101118_AABQNZ manganyi_t_Page_134.tif
0701fc818d3314469d90d4e232f95e9f
40ab5d01acf1e8e0173fb80b762ba1d27245cee7
27524 F20101118_AABQPC manganyi_t_Page_001.jp2
c5dc4830ba5ea36e37ac1375504577b9
9b1de3a7fead78dbbc9c853e85b6f2cb86e582fd
6303 F20101118_AABRSF manganyi_t_Page_106thm.jpg
3906ab8c0a79dbb9db0fbe441ac46f4f
5d96ad5e45684bf7dd0235eac58ad2c05bb84e48
F20101118_AABRRQ manganyi_t_Page_088thm.jpg
3d6b1a8e12c6d5ce0f67bdb6400b7831
a5c3ec45a6256d986381e15ffec90f1a6950f96c
F20101118_AABQOO manganyi_t_Page_085.tif
1565ae8bdb319138fca8b579eb9d78d2
c9030ce079ac6e25223299d82ecdb1529e4d2ce5
114750 F20101118_AABQPD manganyi_t_Page_023.jp2
2a5a68cd934a969d950e154183082b17
89e0143fcc2fb63a3a784eaaa6df4d22eed738db
6348 F20101118_AABRSG manganyi_t_Page_107thm.jpg
7afcfa6f1127f7f5bd5696de92307a72
488f1b718ee4fa19e063cd18c8531dcf7bfd3c77
28970 F20101118_AABRRR manganyi_t_Page_090.QC.jpg
2346e70f8b60b2251fde342b6296413e
d7518ca06f3ea3b261adc89e8696a88883b69143
F20101118_AABQOP manganyi_t_Page_008.tif
2441f4609033562e203d2679749de530
a8932477c79db7fc5df17636339dfb6de73c413e
6935 F20101118_AABQPE manganyi_t_Page_191thm.jpg
4e0bc9745eb3b0918d9ae5c20bf3d84d
be69afce98b2d8b0d17307c6665bb252cc2e2293
25912 F20101118_AABRSH manganyi_t_Page_107.QC.jpg
8c175f026329c08b49de9d622890c455
4810e858fc92d4248cfc16c994321dd7a22dedcd
22766 F20101118_AABRRS manganyi_t_Page_091.QC.jpg
698b2fd9f33fb80e086d3af224b74d60
7ff94a55330d7ac0606273481089de23c2178b88
F20101118_AABQOQ manganyi_t_Page_002.jp2
ff29211689990eeacfd9d596501a2efe
b0820fde3e3edee40bc93db627c48002ebd0646e
F20101118_AABQPF manganyi_t_Page_050.tif
ebf19cb3d6a2f036b9c0a2c24c2be678
2b3c9b657bb82059610b431d003a77e5ecbee629
6534 F20101118_AABRSI manganyi_t_Page_108thm.jpg
8165d1f2f7906ee571c00e991f10fdfa
4ca4e7ad2f61ac7fa87e9397a96999babed79804
4516 F20101118_AABRRT manganyi_t_Page_093thm.jpg
2d5d3c39a743e0efcad2be35fef0bdb9
e4b9c7a83e65db1d6e5e27a3d21109b4fad581bd
F20101118_AABQOR manganyi_t_Page_194.jp2
b7b994c57ec2cdf5cdd8409e7ae5a25b
a0777d3a471f4fb189a74b59e9372c02215ec860
F20101118_AABQPG manganyi_t_Page_179.tif
41ded72129a8c83308f44333081a1dc5
70d70ff4aece9611775cf8c37b5465e1b43360cd
6753 F20101118_AABRSJ manganyi_t_Page_109thm.jpg
6d28d163f5c5ac6e6a190e74484556e2
68e4d668c216ac24c4ca29ce1f732dc4b97f49ff
18229 F20101118_AABRRU manganyi_t_Page_093.QC.jpg
93458170f3153464c55b6582958eb692
bd0abf34b7535cd4b550525a3f8481a02c3b258b
2562 F20101118_AABQOS manganyi_t_Page_184.txt
2721c94d580b4329523c3f5b2997ed63
bb5754bf5285dd0592a5f466d3f08bc3dfbcc1fd
F20101118_AABQPH manganyi_t_Page_036.tif
8f78e1fe1cecd5f8c4a862c82ed6f21f
3a5b55a1f5349bece6701e92a838e6663b7505c4
28472 F20101118_AABRSK manganyi_t_Page_109.QC.jpg
808a52f97ae776ebb4d405585d358935
809846b8078f3ba13598642e761dab342b19053b
4053 F20101118_AABRRV manganyi_t_Page_095thm.jpg
c6f3e4caf199dd75e662e5d2276f5450
54c10ab4a42667865810231a314ea64ae20ccb2f
6668 F20101118_AABQOT manganyi_t_Page_040thm.jpg
c82d8b9b49695f26ddc1b4176fe55ec5
553b3a30e76c62d76273d495efdce71bf779ef41
55312 F20101118_AABQPI manganyi_t_Page_125.pro
79e59608c4a98ef4da89b310b8a237dd
7a53946ef90cd276ba325135e4116140c5156b29
6439 F20101118_AABRSL manganyi_t_Page_110thm.jpg
d068c83781e324d240db4a0892d7b855
81c028c0df02103dec29886b1154327b7cb63d86
3641 F20101118_AABRRW manganyi_t_Page_096thm.jpg
6bc09083be5a08425abe7a24691dbab6
6fdd7753053acf0e6c171b178d07e213a4b43f02
2153 F20101118_AABQOU manganyi_t_Page_112.txt
3dffff6a41e4e29542e677d9fbf18333
e7593ec26c27a8ca507f544cef02a3862465b409
F20101118_AABQPJ manganyi_t_Page_023.txt
e42f3ae22d9ffe7c12a3f19c2372f792
6265e05f10a974f72483e11841a33a9bc1b4b21d
27204 F20101118_AABRTA manganyi_t_Page_129.QC.jpg
1cf7043165600d30414c0a6a3cd236a7
f5f32ab5192c0c9f9caf27dfdcb6d166e4a9900d
28322 F20101118_AABRSM manganyi_t_Page_112.QC.jpg
0f22778463d37e935bfdee845b6eca04
5a27ae6e19a22f07cd60338226d280aafb2e17ad
5279 F20101118_AABRRX manganyi_t_Page_098thm.jpg
4d990f4b350b7a1530e27115c0c1bf23
c6f222254d6faa8c8934976301b403fa48ec19c1
15375 F20101118_AABQOV manganyi_t_Page_148.QC.jpg
a22a851a49acb763aef914fcbe8cb551
48e17c3fa58b7381fa8931dae16195bf2ff36c29
47781 F20101118_AABQPK manganyi_t_Page_097.jp2
2ee468ccc3f920083c467332b642db6f
1377622b16c03f92f8ae938e2d4f131c16d6e778
F20101118_AABRTB manganyi_t_Page_130thm.jpg
a144978fbe74565d2ab054018a1f0587
2876eb7fc25e96d8cc5b763499cbd454a25b8f19
3418 F20101118_AABRRY manganyi_t_Page_099thm.jpg
4fcb5ba550b6437c6bdd8e1a3264a7cc
0686da30f367a4c01f665112999a2b1c29dac30f
68705 F20101118_AABQOW manganyi_t_Page_150.jp2
1d3262933188b46d781e78b9584e7c29
f41f7dd9d101049c8750616c1d870b621195782f
25556 F20101118_AABRTC manganyi_t_Page_130.QC.jpg
a8aef6eb7f12f6013880886484774a07
07c946e5a12c331ee4e601a6487dcb2a6c78e0b7
F20101118_AABRSN manganyi_t_Page_113thm.jpg
5b43f7e0a28b4b169b040726ea6de97f
d04a60a24b3f2858d1acdc6589613b4a2af6daa9
21604 F20101118_AABRRZ manganyi_t_Page_100.QC.jpg
c4a82537db4f574d9079f2f095b5e966
aabc8897f6e08bd8109c66602a83e6e34936f59c
52299 F20101118_AABQOX manganyi_t_Page_076.pro
3abb44d6bded8998f826bc6016878517
73936b67fd73131d0dcd2018fc0a6734e4e75a8e
13716 F20101118_AABQQA manganyi_t_Page_143.QC.jpg
b8ad2db8489809d8d4fe5a356f096cce
3e0c7c6748ffd4a1238c06c5d3abc0326e59360e
88772 F20101118_AABQPL manganyi_t_Page_134.jpg
6972dda82b7d3e6ed25121815ea8ceab
8a62eefae2b493b22156c140e6740a356a518dec
5960 F20101118_AABRTD manganyi_t_Page_131thm.jpg
c3ca02de8b484dbdc97ffb70d01c4e2c
5822af6de21ef7b34e21a124c09dfc27d1cabeb1
28371 F20101118_AABRSO manganyi_t_Page_113.QC.jpg
c76baa96b0c85dfe3d83816acab72aa8
6140acc7a3c8a87b4ab5acf181654c3e1ee3d12c
F20101118_AABQOY manganyi_t_Page_017.tif
e6d9b88318b30a2ce42df9c7e511782b
ee7a66d6d477125309bf4ef1d8433b621511cdc4
6546 F20101118_AABQQB manganyi_t_Page_063thm.jpg
f7003d367ee570b22970894a8c134de3
7c3b7d8bc478078064fdc446d917a6860e58f93d
110253 F20101118_AABQPM manganyi_t_Page_061.jp2
55e8c6e15e018a715d10065f00e7330e
cf8eb9b5acb96adf0c447b6431da002e5d5dbc09
24445 F20101118_AABRTE manganyi_t_Page_131.QC.jpg
5570bc560b58cbd2294b80ec0f240c41
0e15604050cab1fbaf71c35189c90f5f61454655
6450 F20101118_AABRSP manganyi_t_Page_114thm.jpg
4c892869c4df49238ff1f393068c36db
bd937e7b23644cf23708a59d50a9ec69162699f7
1833 F20101118_AABQOZ manganyi_t_Page_013.txt
e32a9893b9ef8ac026d2a65f2614fbdd
a7481037a733ee25664f61e2b9b30c55b7de0b7c
53334 F20101118_AABQQC manganyi_t_Page_089.pro
53a8722ec8456b2c479e934b4b5cd03d
9f146fdcf3191d36215e9b30dd4aa9c9a30541bb
51874 F20101118_AABQPN manganyi_t_Page_092.pro
78866340efafdb8636b33afa5dddc462
e18e9035c7758a67068f26a82174f12ee9de71aa
6394 F20101118_AABRTF manganyi_t_Page_135thm.jpg
6b995448557881ccbb58d58778a105cf
d13df99b7236caefb3d0a17ce079a78bdc3b8c59
6602 F20101118_AABRSQ manganyi_t_Page_115thm.jpg
655307e67331c36f3a27319b2ffe66d6
5c9f4987dce1ffaf781a3718e57346178922203b
28030 F20101118_AABQQD manganyi_t_Page_167.QC.jpg
10d932a7086816eff49e9875da4d1a0f
41429fa49af33c92d7713a215bc88be7e33eff9b
25444 F20101118_AABQPO manganyi_t_Page_010.QC.jpg
f7b3d5b9313e919fce35a655b3086e4c
d1e8a811b43ac7f42f546e513c5d3560932f721e
27340 F20101118_AABRTG manganyi_t_Page_136.QC.jpg
713fea772e1d95ada10cfa84949bb5fc
3a16876cfdced0897d2ede62362693f46eb3b0a3
6172 F20101118_AABRSR manganyi_t_Page_116thm.jpg
3ab498598d9ba815e22dd7e192b4a872
afad0a5c3b67b259b2c24f45f902e6068e46375b
5838 F20101118_AABQQE manganyi_t_Page_128thm.jpg
2f95d48f64431ec9870f59bba3f3fcdd
39c61d3be3395936c14ad074f7f51d4d5e379b2a
47330 F20101118_AABQPP manganyi_t_Page_131.pro
5f76b1a844f39e10323725b3ec2a4dd0
d76946576b5f34f231897e7abb64e9c4e4552439
27363 F20101118_AABRTH manganyi_t_Page_137.QC.jpg
7ca54431dc7368a781ba90e507d8390c
5aed5f4cad0ded1ca821f726ea74094643770ecc
7037 F20101118_AABRSS manganyi_t_Page_118thm.jpg
01c07dc634485dda76295a51ba3f2eb1
bc68158775a73906881d07ae71bcd80c01ff33bb
25734 F20101118_AABQQF manganyi_t_Page_128.QC.jpg
ed66e60e05fe74cf81e1952743a5f0d3
4ea6923b743665780a889f55c2b8d2f41fcc3246
2116 F20101118_AABQPQ manganyi_t_Page_123.txt
48cdaa159d97cfd1c5031e107788d6d4
069129f8cb4cead18d1577167b8335706a057c07
25189 F20101118_AABRTI manganyi_t_Page_139.QC.jpg
2bb4c000da2497c5284aa669e433f94b
f28e22b14516b88772657cdc5c4770f082149e51
6599 F20101118_AABRST manganyi_t_Page_119thm.jpg
7d4057e25083a8704c94c47475e8d652
e91856c63f01eafdc2b589e42729e2e01fd79f48
6804 F20101118_AABQQG manganyi_t_Page_042thm.jpg
70cf624263a557dae52a4ca34cb84ee3
b86681791343dd097f6e4eb9d6b28f3ce40e6fd2
120506 F20101118_AABQPR manganyi_t_Page_174.jp2
3460352231d9a573d6d7301889d5293b
3d603dc3511e5325be746e22ebc88cfa0efd2e8d
5569 F20101118_AABRTJ manganyi_t_Page_140.QC.jpg
69c10486c349783670549a25a4d51b3d
a5688d941a579e2c5b0ee5bf584e298da9a0dbab
6553 F20101118_AABRSU manganyi_t_Page_120thm.jpg
3ef030e4567d0c49f74d986917f49507
4d506a807808cbc5176bb9da70acf5deaa6f963a
88449 F20101118_AABQQH manganyi_t_Page_092.jpg
d0079ac8e46f2a6b72d2a697a7eaded1
70648cc2782b0006e9493f6d06882d68dc502666
6385 F20101118_AABQPS manganyi_t_Page_071thm.jpg
b55a8c80ff173e8ca1d57e17d8ac288b
fc0f5515196914f6b1cec7302ae588887415397e
3492 F20101118_AABRTK manganyi_t_Page_141thm.jpg
27dff742556a6c46a9813431a28fd908
f18c97857de1ef4569c0b6a908dbc6f1f1389850
6299 F20101118_AABRSV manganyi_t_Page_122thm.jpg
590fdc30dbde9b472f6e3fe5fb6396a0
e1ea3454d432b1d4c33fc35fd53390c441e527bc
112005 F20101118_AABQQI manganyi_t_Page_122.jp2
8d7c1f401cdaffdb0482dc9c390d0bae
5e910e655ec481ed4382ae9ef37d22b644db5c7b
12428 F20101118_AABQPT manganyi_t_Page_156.QC.jpg
14f24e22cd801e12ec15fb6db35bf062
a39fdbeb9cdfba4d9a2cff3676a7463e46dac9aa
3951 F20101118_AABRTL manganyi_t_Page_142thm.jpg
36c59709e896d8e8348917a7302b6da6
8011256b8e357cca67940ffd6ca46fc8ea369148
27130 F20101118_AABRSW manganyi_t_Page_124.QC.jpg
3c38140d0424218e2ca14908bd484849
237de82f3fd0a9ed27666e1035e3570688d9566d
55262 F20101118_AABQQJ manganyi_t_Page_115.pro
0de5742cd23cd080190f6a92e45b44a1
e56ae4a7039e2c5c8f489eae7659c0483631c565
113940 F20101118_AABQPU manganyi_t_Page_020.jp2
499d242b25a67f16a987fb2ad484a760
94c3755720afe8d7cb4f74708d67d2d50f97e02e
9105 F20101118_AABRUA manganyi_t_Page_153.QC.jpg
03db581f9f67ad1612f16c06a8325b29
2bfd8309c5784f84907c4c98567509c9f7346eda
16953 F20101118_AABRTM manganyi_t_Page_142.QC.jpg
957ae57acbfee8e1a3213523652b203e
5685aaadab8421f0f018fd2f9ca48c96e59e8480
6751 F20101118_AABRSX manganyi_t_Page_125thm.jpg
a2a0fe1e0580b101bd91c03642201010
4982867c9b6a0e072c629f7c8cbde5131228ffd0
28454 F20101118_AABQQK manganyi_t_Page_183.QC.jpg
be3c9d369a69a28acabff43000ac4099
671e01e50f535150f2690bf9ba60b67983461d16
24734 F20101118_AABQPV manganyi_t_Page_147.pro
6b5b607109849075ad29e5ed057e1a87
c1f58b96d8a9c070d93317a730d52383c373d155
10292 F20101118_AABRUB manganyi_t_Page_157.QC.jpg
77b881abe63067dc9b441a4c51bfd295
319416a97a9bc183a74268c913d0c5dbc443fda6
3808 F20101118_AABRTN manganyi_t_Page_143thm.jpg
80a6ed5dd564fa08e5994928c2f96878
a8016ce2b134deda07ea1565c8924c4fb6703c82
28250 F20101118_AABRSY manganyi_t_Page_126.QC.jpg
d62b5e9fcb77025869198906d628d550
ece4789ba969d3edf426e166e2ff4ced93a5ec38
78421 F20101118_AABQQL manganyi_t_Page_069.jpg
d84f7fc29b13e079e2fd46a4895cbfb1
ea30f0247f184e2f8a1290169d7b0bc53fe09678
116608 F20101118_AABQPW manganyi_t_Page_045.jp2
829953cb69894c4687bfe5ca1961d7e5
387bbd3c7b1856fa3ed1aa0a793a9e27cdd0a278
14958 F20101118_AABRUC manganyi_t_Page_158.QC.jpg
35aa1d89287cebdb417fbdeffc6123ec
627112eff4874e5dfac9445dd1c7b6d5016f4785
5862 F20101118_AABRSZ manganyi_t_Page_127thm.jpg
939672e7ad0dfd78d9e0dce7e765f55f
a93247302ceaba75c83f920efbd90a9efb3944ec
26631 F20101118_AABQRA manganyi_t_Page_196.pro
9fee604a8b38e2a8631e7f1d0d782d73
47321bcbce8d56b347edeaf5fd3293852d564eb3
104568 F20101118_AABQPX manganyi_t_Page_005.jp2
709501d1d473d08ba644bea3b82a82d4
7535c201a9f5c11e61ca9e8cf7b7a8dca9488677
4021 F20101118_AABRUD manganyi_t_Page_160thm.jpg
009609ffd476829ca9714e7ddac04b73
1cfefa9c2647f8d315349e06db6cb7ddf7434a55
4106 F20101118_AABRTO manganyi_t_Page_145thm.jpg
909816235521a859c865ea9ab556213c
101c47061c0f2458a67195b171dc56799f2a916f
84825 F20101118_AABQRB manganyi_t_Page_033.jpg
9256e6e24a1dc728c9b34c8f38284505
43def149c16131f23fd6c12f1782a0673f0658ab
15512 F20101118_AABQQM manganyi_t_Page_014.QC.jpg
d7b19791f7af5a0fe9088baa4f7c3175
192d538645426f61f4ab82ad0d042841bc14a7ef
F20101118_AABQPY manganyi_t_Page_045.txt
fcb55303157af0e9ca90643367bd54e0
ed334edf7a2ce30652f18b951a384a1945196a07
16009 F20101118_AABRUE manganyi_t_Page_160.QC.jpg
31592922efd7438bdf1dc5614c7c8c19
21bac3da87980adaf8c71e17893cfec94e0a593d
3765 F20101118_AABRTP manganyi_t_Page_146thm.jpg
8fd6b7dada8b1a2d3ad1d008778a0ece
bcc57d6ab6fe7dca0ec237576027168795a67d40
29411 F20101118_AABQRC manganyi_t_Page_070.QC.jpg
830e5f947d9d4056ff7517fb8f5f8fc7
ea5c8f9c9709cc56892c3b57a3867422a4a0fc94
49640 F20101118_AABQQN manganyi_t_Page_169.pro
b73a18e070b684f86998bd8445f68e10
1e70625b41ff78c195c87bbc13d67ff63b5ba196
7233 F20101118_AABQPZ manganyi_t_Page_181thm.jpg
64d591fd9ead7b061edb3a4f85d61698
efe4a96b78e4062f0be35053b1454248dc124bca
4592 F20101118_AABRUF manganyi_t_Page_163thm.jpg
354eb02dd7a65263dd5fa6d085a9b8d8
64e2a19271ed5d83710726cbec700a83aec315fb
14365 F20101118_AABRTQ manganyi_t_Page_146.QC.jpg
88ae4ff96b404a5425d186193a991859
dc8bc74ebc81bb496afcbdd29d02879e20479278
1385 F20101118_AABQRD manganyi_t_Page_141.txt
b7225ff26d8e89a44461173150182db6
3b3b57197de0b04beeaa9936bbe2d2652cc791b9
89183 F20101118_AABQQO manganyi_t_Page_087.jpg
1ad241fe5af5d17235d4835b763714f1
e223001eb19cf90838fbdf1c20cb39ecf2436806
15460 F20101118_AABRUG manganyi_t_Page_163.QC.jpg
d87a7e8c2f281d6b22aa21c088b2a30c
3a0f1544822d1047f46d7bbfff58ee8273989b0c
3498 F20101118_AABRTR manganyi_t_Page_147thm.jpg
61e6d20388ab3ce52a59f01290c37a37
94153eb002faa876f14c6d89f79048cfb0ac5c85
3196 F20101118_AABQRE manganyi_t_Page_007.txt
2c45ee02003d95d3237216ad1618d015
ac50e1e83ba346e3e2d73158faf77753ea98b992
1112 F20101118_AABQQP manganyi_t_Page_160.txt
bcd9bfdf467fab93a5aad31ebb0d233e
9d50c11dc10a416be657ad0548ad1597a6b38e2d
4247 F20101118_AABRUH manganyi_t_Page_165thm.jpg
12bb2967ad439ca80691e5f9b946b403
a55347e19507eac28e63b25f1e8954afb056a502
13977 F20101118_AABRTS manganyi_t_Page_147.QC.jpg
376996d54117d93a1f7c89386a75aa0d
f1f1511c916f34a634367aeb0812cc20a3b42638
6652 F20101118_AABQRF manganyi_t_Page_035thm.jpg
900a4360bc01f1d7405dfdf71f25cd2e
40de11e9dec99288eddbf97ea15791a25d27956b
93112 F20101118_AABQQQ manganyi_t_Page_017.jpg
0d76434576a0f452e40b39f451ebc071
314adf8c5e05700c0ec3a1132cf9fb44021d4572
15636 F20101118_AABRUI manganyi_t_Page_165.QC.jpg
0b0408fe44e599bd46f331bb4d71ef7c
b23f884d2da0c84bdd90a732464cfba5092a0734
3819 F20101118_AABRTT manganyi_t_Page_148thm.jpg
a9137872efcb61906ffdf3ed1cb7ff47
ec2a1127266230cc0151ed64178c882a98674f01
121063 F20101118_AABQRG manganyi_t_Page_090.jp2
1acec48d41981595c476dcf2c7b51afa
6c2b552b981ed1e6f37ce3d5eb7e0c0cbebd99b2
87985 F20101118_AABQQR manganyi_t_Page_060.jpg
482e0bfe5b37cd11291406475035096b
a6066052d2e12ec8740f62a595b82f95aadcfb1c
6561 F20101118_AABRUJ manganyi_t_Page_168thm.jpg
dbf0d2dc57c36bfb01fb9b077831c512
c22ca31f44ad95fd5e7e8b831e56d6456447acaf
15914 F20101118_AABRTU manganyi_t_Page_149.QC.jpg
c08de7e3c6ebfb3975685e9f8f22d710
883b9148add1543bd015f3382a408c4c873d5129
108048 F20101118_AABQRH manganyi_t_Page_059.jp2
8065640043687fd10370af79ba66252c
6b90c5805a2483f39390f70c75bdc48789e5db7d
6502 F20101118_AABQQS manganyi_t_Page_033thm.jpg
cceed9bfbe06f3348fc81f02198c10bc
baadec0fdf8251efb2e9929a392e402ca605f880
27412 F20101118_AABRUK manganyi_t_Page_168.QC.jpg
eb78a48a9d1ff16a6866591044fc018c
dc6a4f27af55b73c0ecd783a23043ec5850afc24
3977 F20101118_AABRTV manganyi_t_Page_150thm.jpg
4e426cfc071ebc42cfa87fe52616cc01
41e60ce454953356a10048626b64866d495aea53
6604 F20101118_AABQRI manganyi_t_Page_004thm.jpg
be6a8bafe0f5d05446ff70b83bb7f451
c59cbf2acd6b904ed09da00ada0041a3d0db4006
15477 F20101118_AABQQT manganyi_t_Page_105.pro
d52ba163f8a9a48e9a628d4b0e48b8f4
6852bd25be5383612b601a1dc64516308d8cd649
6750 F20101118_AABRUL manganyi_t_Page_169thm.jpg
56970f30060c4e85f8c5aa781f4080c3
65bebef9c233e4a1cc86bbbd7f400f1044f39e6b
3689 F20101118_AABRTW manganyi_t_Page_151thm.jpg
10ba63a0cada7fae103dcc88d8736db4
676b5cc80cd47b3bdb1405498800b74b51250e96
2075 F20101118_AABQRJ manganyi_t_Page_064.txt
e7dd0c0913828e7a12853d5c7ac71383
ae695ad0f28438eb6d2bd3543047b14281a5c34b
2055 F20101118_AABQQU manganyi_t_Page_122.txt
de36bfd98467ca0e032a889514cb6141
70194c76538bd62664cca2578ec217d85cbfcad3
26625 F20101118_AABRVA manganyi_t_Page_180.QC.jpg
8606db1070ea01cc0853d6a12bf1e26d
4cae667cf341c941a94dc7ab5755019d56697f3e
26785 F20101118_AABRUM manganyi_t_Page_169.QC.jpg
ebe8fa2c9a4cc8834700baf597ba98ff
bef67d1fc23ae151881a9a0b5901b3101fd1f9fd
13791 F20101118_AABRTX manganyi_t_Page_151.QC.jpg
5ffcea1c6d170f8be89d2a764f481438
0b42cefeb76b8cd74194c81947fca89949dfe225
92836 F20101118_AABQRK manganyi_t_Page_073.jpg
62584d173d7edf20efecbd0fa3416cf0
5527f7ecc3980bcbbf0e267c6fd696d89c9555db
F20101118_AABQQV manganyi_t_Page_136.txt
892483e6d94e78c0c9be8bd53c4cdb21
d499d6fedf3c928b3ca1ae7f077f9a37e1b15813
1851 F20101118_AABRVB manganyi_t_Page_182thm.jpg
c58cf7e05547f5c69a2fb977fe08795a
0e51fc818ead71d7269af660b913ca8d48d8d3dc
6404 F20101118_AABRUN manganyi_t_Page_170thm.jpg
4305c78f341a52e44a0e8992a502a0cc
4e312ef9f744e7c421fa3e638cd9bcf6427c3515
3850 F20101118_AABRTY manganyi_t_Page_152thm.jpg
a7715eb570575d43626751170a84eeda
640e91f0a13c5698e5122374f2dee6864e218fff
1013 F20101118_AABQRL manganyi_t_Page_096.txt
a51c497e054ed7f316760ab2fced0bc2
b7ba5565476773de4ac469a25d524ff0846496bd
4605 F20101118_AABQQW manganyi_t_Page_077thm.jpg
7ee6299e962fb5b2d6c321f837eb5bc2
512bb08a5699987f41e0afa98f7f6e8f34802d03
6758 F20101118_AABRVC manganyi_t_Page_182.QC.jpg
9cfe0e836da19d4273065f1f291bd1f6
f495381a8bd36899f0772e6033d9cdc25471ca74
7019 F20101118_AABRUO manganyi_t_Page_172thm.jpg
11e758528c0876b1320d3462e3a7d6d5
f4627f49d09fd9947312f365ed07028f02d1c005
2555 F20101118_AABRTZ manganyi_t_Page_153thm.jpg
d6939c62ca2ac5dbd31d39ef160bc697
b803f328587f760a996eb50ffde5c61513661be6
28461 F20101118_AABQRM manganyi_t_Page_049.QC.jpg
fd4841041869294afea68bed5583e4aa
d10c4be533c2508c4da366436f301747acc1e18a
1392 F20101118_AABQQX manganyi_t_Page_171thm.jpg
78cb6152a189143ccd5830263ff3c1c1
2a243c061afc79f3c1e001da9da164d7f60ad4bf
6003 F20101118_AABQSA manganyi_t_Page_091thm.jpg
ae773a8290e4ae570b53707b005cce03
5ec855b4d2c025195d87093a78ac06ed4081e596
6759 F20101118_AABRVD manganyi_t_Page_183thm.jpg
de8da00d8a9c7906bfd29d560d48bdac
21cbd7f525066eda9a6525d70acd99db5b8071ea
27905 F20101118_AABQQY manganyi_t_Page_014.pro
820b45f1ef305946acd5efdac1f6a406
450f80c84841b4b72c3583f856cf76a181076bdb
6548 F20101118_AABQSB manganyi_t_Page_134thm.jpg
c14dc8cf3418f49901828d1d1351873b
f3858185ebd95549c76bea44550be102bb2a32d0
6981 F20101118_AABRVE manganyi_t_Page_184thm.jpg
8e7e297090f49fb2c1e62a703b987e84
758420ef5687ddb40d543f0fab5dcd079a06a580
6509 F20101118_AABRUP manganyi_t_Page_173thm.jpg
83e70d8703253a7e154ad69509289eb2
4ef0960ee94b2df60219e90e61063fcf7e0dfaad
1051903 F20101118_AABQQZ manganyi_t_Page_029.jp2
1dfc39355ca0b690d474d723f9a43208
4f91eae19dd272b5495b585423403f029799f8c9
46864 F20101118_AABQSC manganyi_t_Page_196.jpg
7775182513c1a654196d1b0e0fbd323c
b7023720c8a501858881d569217e4e7af4656557
3575 F20101118_AABQRN manganyi_t_Page_079.pro
1c1cab17b550525aa7f772c032090033
0d6d749e7b891c3229eac979b641c26d38c9de96
29856 F20101118_AABRVF manganyi_t_Page_184.QC.jpg
ec520d7f83a99ddbcadfb7e4e8380988
bee938c390e7c192457cd00dba0eb66731d545b3
7174 F20101118_AABRUQ manganyi_t_Page_174thm.jpg
10d7a7446d4baa1f9556946767b843b5
86b3d420fd79445203c46a998a3bc061c0ca60be
17612 F20101118_AABQSD manganyi_t_Page_162.QC.jpg
f1b7637f160e2f536d190bc12fd462f6
6cfc29f8722d78220d6f846ca3403b8ca3dacb07
54894 F20101118_AABQRO manganyi_t_Page_035.pro
20f01f7055c3887e7ff7f616582e9e10
bdac4f7b8183924ca98a5a3be131c7f4d8dd0034
6941 F20101118_AABRVG manganyi_t_Page_185thm.jpg
14cfbd8d783c0b37762b610f058a679e
adde6ac328b23c6c0d3e7bfef5b908d7bb9ddc3a
29458 F20101118_AABRUR manganyi_t_Page_174.QC.jpg
fa034fd975a2e7782e08cd49d914cf61
aa16b2e5c9389ca3fdc681ad378d8453c4e80ad9
21731 F20101118_AABQSE manganyi_t_Page_143.pro
1a78270570a512b7b249a043b399f81b
6d11fcb53b837226c366f9ff92248399bfe6d27e
F20101118_AABQRP manganyi_t_Page_186.tif
56dda64db871c81f666f90bbcc273bbc
7317a4de35afb80faa813b579813c655090f9e0a
28901 F20101118_AABRVH manganyi_t_Page_185.QC.jpg
dd23e2efe188724c64c12ea5bbf79035
6cf7a5ea281a5c65bf84be23b88e7ff42aa96498
F20101118_AABRUS manganyi_t_Page_175thm.jpg
d66a4c096d426cfa7a0978efd1187c02
bff3d655dd8ac5e118b9e149d6184ae553ec826c
F20101118_AABQSF manganyi_t_Page_159.tif
375db1d59fe8c36dd7b11f955c033d32
dcb03e9deef9649498d4f2cd5c285a13842fb579
13201 F20101118_AABQRQ manganyi_t_Page_141.QC.jpg
6fc82240f836a8a35212f2a6e1519088
7947346887047b1cd6c1868e9edcd525c7804a3e
7311 F20101118_AABRVI manganyi_t_Page_188thm.jpg
530ed511624ac068cc27e1697e243601
5bad51d43c9cd84debb35ba4a0b8dae4274d4e1b
7327 F20101118_AABRUT manganyi_t_Page_176thm.jpg
611bd57269eeb05a31a2244d28bd46a7
4ea8aaad1c04b0692c7c46accbecf6be5d51ec83
55036 F20101118_AABQSG manganyi_t_Page_136.pro
7a4e1e70e0066ca2f2b59f401776852a
7c468229429a6b50ab0459ec12cfb423eef609ba
32454 F20101118_AABQRR manganyi_t_Page_093.pro
f95b484d81d40afb4b07bbbafa99af18
c14d6cfec40d3453d30752b14f0b29c0cde6127f
31578 F20101118_AABRVJ manganyi_t_Page_190.QC.jpg
32941ba0dba114ffb3c300c6c628fa89
8ffdc14b0c5ef77065887e9a7d5fcbe685ed8817
7285 F20101118_AABRUU manganyi_t_Page_177thm.jpg
f59b5aa2fd20193958c1885bcdaf4f35
174f9acc1ae53dd22a0b205c75b2884b2fc024ad
1051968 F20101118_AABQSH manganyi_t_Page_185.jp2
49d0ab6cea2460e8f007d2673a48acec
68a59a057f18a7808a918d051f9c7f49637a0f9d
4675 F20101118_AABQRS manganyi_t_Page_101thm.jpg
97c8da25ecb9ffdadf088b68009feb35
0034cf968910af98618831a06ac44f48b7030408
29660 F20101118_AABRVK manganyi_t_Page_191.QC.jpg
1ee9e4b4c1cb4d3ffc2975681dd74295
80d97fa223bfd40c0ccda1bef5b244bde56bfa52
6987 F20101118_AABRUV manganyi_t_Page_178thm.jpg
5af718bbb6e4f663f31b81c46f613e3d
0e5a5bc1ff8d2d9e04c973031188227ff16d1a5b
6629 F20101118_AABQSI manganyi_t_Page_037thm.jpg
57b17798629c9c0b5ad23cb87250ed4c
bc0826db376a54817367e6a15c3c6baa63575989
29812 F20101118_AABQRT manganyi_t_Page_172.QC.jpg
44e39598f762a5ca87fc8bd252fc9250
e28678ed39b9266464b81b70addbf29b83654626
6880 F20101118_AABRVL manganyi_t_Page_192thm.jpg
ef403c9b337fa904c15797eac3ff40d7
644378ec9fc8cf5e9a9600cb51a7210c26433415
28046 F20101118_AABRUW manganyi_t_Page_178.QC.jpg
748e7b937aae086f7a366100ad03d919
3db5e70ca9ab7f61879e3ee0af59e11e0913aba5
50836 F20101118_AABQSJ manganyi_t_Page_088.pro
d9d3767363406cc9e685cce6bcd5657d
934d5c8b7d0ba08f993438e5909aea972d27ad85
30762 F20101118_AABQRU manganyi_t_Page_118.QC.jpg
4194cba5cd5d1173c340fefd61b9f3f2
be7329015f7772bcd1c4cd11fca1e73fed9f28f4
7038 F20101118_AABRVM manganyi_t_Page_193thm.jpg
d204f874d2058dd7434dbaf109910c9a
82f323c5302315381a3d89d8e00f391473930d1c
6940 F20101118_AABRUX manganyi_t_Page_179thm.jpg
bdec8eb6ff4a913ff61d69e18adc9e7a
49a14d4537e9dc9d5aabe77100fe2da75589edb9
95850 F20101118_AABQSK manganyi_t_Page_031.jp2
25c6efcea341a98b596f00fde4f0a164
b28d504e1d4a0fbcc351a1fda3125ee8fde1c467
2227 F20101118_AABQRV manganyi_t_Page_070.txt
a53f276522f2e50ebc37729240520937
61f53cb20f21859ceb96b4cb9e3edc3dd786f57c
724 F20101118_AABRVN manganyi_t_Page_195thm.jpg
4fc2da5b0678c3bf63395a2ac34edad4
1de756bb8381d5daf51f61d7aaa2079e4a28dbaf
27132 F20101118_AABRUY manganyi_t_Page_179.QC.jpg
59309f3c5ca1c5ab59b3a87063bcd846
f181157e508704edf71d1ce2fab4ef9a886acaf4
62539 F20101118_AABQSL manganyi_t_Page_193.pro
e3448789ff74ecbb12461517b42104ff
fc45d614b1c7f636e6855ab706449031b36788fd
87235 F20101118_AABQRW manganyi_t_Page_039.jpg
532493ccc281e48cf295b60f489141d5
b79bb7b7a07b4d2ce53d79a81b57db7e360256f5
14854 F20101118_AABRVO manganyi_t_Page_196.QC.jpg
3ca920a916b1c74c1377d07a4a4346af
5f3ddaa0a40e81c5d22b733ea56d7792733e2448
6677 F20101118_AABRUZ manganyi_t_Page_180thm.jpg
ba9a9c0f998ab1d1bc1aed7c69354673
94f036f5b2bc493d9e1ddb4eb364d4df48d1fc7d
2141 F20101118_AABQTA manganyi_t_Page_051.txt
f115896b9963a111b648c7630d99623d
fde79c451c10429b616ff6eafe8dc23038f0787d
19960 F20101118_AABQSM manganyi_t_Page_104.pro
787996a2f5087dda1fa83f728cec343d
f045c19c00eaaf29806dffb5f3a77ea75d8bbf7c
46986 F20101118_AABQRX manganyi_t_Page_147.jpg
628471069dce07863736f81717f0e0aa
459e95c21c3c03c09c6522f5ced5e0e3b7f24f85
227258 F20101118_AABRVP UFE0021601_00001.mets FULL
b44568b4fcd87c62123e9622bb15fe3a
541edf7c232e5318b3733845a0e764e5e4df6dcf
144736 F20101118_AABQTB manganyi_t_Page_190.jp2
69c2217a1cf814bd50954d667bdcbe5b
e3232b6cb2de68ea13f196a880636a9e4cc25cac
F20101118_AABQSN manganyi_t_Page_058.tif
fa7fe9523f7f2d72cc1c256580048779
b5b46bc8d14d7458eba54d85fa251d2f65a54450
641858 F20101118_AABQRY manganyi_t_Page_078.jp2
32e6454c40ba3dc4312adc05a6801413
5eaaadd40f11ba6d7c6d6de580244cfff74229ea
502 F20101118_AABQTC manganyi_t_Page_002thm.jpg
d8ef4d27b47fcf901e6337ee69ae301f
91d837cd2d410646ef1b253f6b7dcca72ea116ec
F20101118_AABQRZ manganyi_t_Page_157.tif
b78eb91b7001749899f8374e469f76fa
5ec9a846db05385d1a60f3d994f46057114210a4
80968 F20101118_AABQTD manganyi_t_Page_133.jpg
f324937905f269f9e4fc3d2e2c38f94b
5ece297b8579aa7c5f76c372dad13b29620d3215
1260 F20101118_AABQSO manganyi_t_Page_143.txt
d73f95ee4acb111e53a66cfea63ae1c0
b60fc09ee51bc9ab741eb741d7ce7a24d520a832
F20101118_AABQTE manganyi_t_Page_194.tif
47645b68b1484a308730b7cb03144ae5
f95516d7fc96dc59b9d753f6d3ee1745936a5f9b
2814 F20101118_AABQSP manganyi_t_Page_189.txt
ddfc7deb2035b250bc2c72c850d2886c
02f9f18c5adecdaab7056bce053d82551488fbec
27540 F20101118_AABQTF manganyi_t_Page_051.QC.jpg
9bfbb95cdfe253360a7f3b9d4b7cd5c2
babe386fad5a0a69fce21993122c4bad936fa57f
F20101118_AABQSQ manganyi_t_Page_072.txt
3617eacc31979d153548a7f9b4be4e1a
328e620377704320b075e5261c6d5db50287b8c5
2059 F20101118_AABQTG manganyi_t_Page_027.txt
7036dc2af3866fe72242574bba9e7900
a3334cb5c239651106ebb3c8464659c881fe81d3
F20101118_AABQSR manganyi_t_Page_005thm.jpg
38401abe7d84b422b55f2461b437e80a
d9badde8982c6aaf1785b60ff600b533a765eef3
26361 F20101118_AABQTH manganyi_t_Page_122.QC.jpg
30bc3b46507156898e6c2b618b924df0
9393bb497673cb10e870dd3b3881cdb2f9a7d815
F20101118_AABQSS manganyi_t_Page_016.tif
8b72e0058cd3f735c625d88466144ee5
938c0bf6ea8b5012712c7fef7e63dbc3a3646ee1
F20101118_AABQTI manganyi_t_Page_102.tif
ada41679557be93d3dbcc3b7f84c3b66
cef65c85c16eaa8220f8b2efe5582a11169c1bdb
F20101118_AABQST manganyi_t_Page_015.txt
4d22cb0df7d629742a68a9d458714b89
075f1ac723bfba2f02591bab4407b1b5cb669b14
F20101118_AABQTJ manganyi_t_Page_066.tif
f40f337baef5a265d3b8bb2bbbc7cc25
be71628c5dd188cd795b74ea08f522b22983f316
64234 F20101118_AABQSU manganyi_t_Page_149.jp2
d62c5d737cb622bfcbff7d35631cbe50
1c4d3c293c30a9c34cfd3c67d11c8b6822d91ae9
7288 F20101118_AABQTK manganyi_t_Page_001.QC.jpg
cb8aafd55119d5539e678f9bd1be4ae6
282d30cff155ba09f55dd580be559bbbeb0ef71c
F20101118_AABQSV manganyi_t_Page_015.tif
19de994249ec7ae1ad2a0c17f1d738ee
5f5f892aacdda2f2985022bd149d919ae37c08c5
2191 F20101118_AABQTL manganyi_t_Page_084.txt
134616af6844858958c4c7c8ed790344
6de171e161b7238724618c2b6985c447ab4b6237
17040 F20101118_AABQSW manganyi_t_Page_012.pro
452b09ac16ff52710d9b68601b16ac48
c08dee401529ef963766b7c5886c56eb49cfe111
26638 F20101118_AABQTM manganyi_t_Page_032.jpg
08d8e1aa33faaad36e1047fcf9f0bfb8
da824c320331fd60bcd87c6c65794186effa2ee1
2056 F20101118_AABQSX manganyi_t_Page_047.txt
23cdbe3a373f7b7cce471cfefc76521d
09fd5a57a4a3022325cade0d3b9544169fc8596c
91431 F20101118_AABQUA manganyi_t_Page_049.jpg
f0b1b5957ddf84f618dcd016dfc6ab95
38ccbbfcc27a0abfae34c16f7101cd6907a82725
9094 F20101118_AABQTN manganyi_t_Page_001.pro
71a4bc43f3a1b24decb43818cdffca35
07f80f6efb3d98f96847bb70bf21a6abb662c21e
F20101118_AABQSY manganyi_t_Page_137.tif
322683bc3d04e946fc707d14eb7e965f
abfacde29a282b8d4690379a0811dab103f3e388
6256 F20101118_AABQUB manganyi_t_Page_020thm.jpg
4c4fd1bbaae7bc24193a98ad1f6a900c
ba26fe61216a2d3dedddc3a48d5f654b751b15f2
6562 F20101118_AABQTO manganyi_t_Page_068thm.jpg
abb510fa7b95e0130a32c7d6d3068823
4b14ed48a6900b2702aeee3ff6dae40e531092de
46834 F20101118_AABQSZ manganyi_t_Page_159.jpg
d6ac7655c87ddfbf08dbc866be8af48b
5160383283786c2b86be1cfb181acb58899cb2ca
106733 F20101118_AABQUC manganyi_t_Page_015.jp2
946c68eae0411cd018f969afbe937b20
45011081546241654207a7589f3790024f2f8f45
F20101118_AABQUD manganyi_t_Page_069.tif
40e2854aca9986393560a8107c9eef81
c328cf797302a9c9f1e04c6d46238600f7b426f6
5669 F20101118_AABQTP manganyi_t_Page_076thm.jpg
6f0398dee46ab90930583efb6ac8880a
41d0bbe66e94f8b9c3a39db222a32c4c8ac6d33d
117914 F20101118_AABQUE manganyi_t_Page_132.jp2
aebd4ca5967ee106bbf366b6c7cf7311
110006aeab0bb7dc138e26349fe0f345ca4143e0
F20101118_AABQTQ manganyi_t_Page_182.tif
a6e5f7721441bb80cf718fc4c7d704f3
745767d178b2ea5a49da3193151febbf34aebb26
F20101118_AABQUF manganyi_t_Page_139.tif
82ef628ad6093e4fc9376e3e0f56d709
462eec9180b5a1942441e06dd6be084ce6dee37b
83840 F20101118_AABRAA manganyi_t_Page_077.jp2
3cea96570198f497a226f4242c2b00b1
b918b5d575f693c8b06fb1f78f398bb91de20956
6637 F20101118_AABQTR manganyi_t_Page_064thm.jpg
5231475c1dc7d053dd746250594818c2
5e196126b0b1438403e0f3a79c330dcfe3b35340
F20101118_AABQUG manganyi_t_Page_195.txt
2ffea5968445c16daca8a555e77e4613
f0b4678c6b858de74861599db977f012468c2150
118319 F20101118_AABRAB manganyi_t_Page_081.jp2
f38e6986c1c7babbbd1865284168201b
7b59716a784e39d77254d4ee32149a3fc7d61a5c
107331 F20101118_AABQTS manganyi_t_Page_080.jp2
97178df3adaf9accd84c5ce0d1aa41cb
48ca80c98e31bb8867f7733b70ebc0c6398a3982
2111 F20101118_AABQUH manganyi_t_Page_108.txt
12fd1a99f58bdabed14045b636f7b67e
0bb89864dcc4d89ba0aa10419dad336552bf9196
98508 F20101118_AABRAC manganyi_t_Page_083.jp2
c88b7d9ddb541a821ecaf90cdb7355a0
e4735ca76b6150aadcafd8058757c987b73b145d
F20101118_AABQTT manganyi_t_Page_132.tif
e1d3f071e4552218cf9b6e50ae35da7c
17089d88dd26c51affc743e933f29ef23c0e01e4
6914 F20101118_AABQUI manganyi_t_Page_017thm.jpg
22e209d6d7a3b6c1c0dd30577a315310
5233fb13e6333a108ab2e226384d1988ae6b5a43
124207 F20101118_AABRAD manganyi_t_Page_084.jp2
329c9f673a5ccfdf2a4fd3bffd4d0cbe
96d0d5c1692442c73688bad8aeada418a77d3946
92680 F20101118_AABQTU manganyi_t_Page_042.jpg
75b19a526eadd7a73cbc4afbf4e9e927
cd9afdad459f499a07262d17849af7ea5de26da6
F20101118_AABQUJ manganyi_t_Page_001.txt
ae847844f72a844d4107ad980e2a17c1
f4dbf7bb3e3b381c595e60235559c352d3a6aa0c
112372 F20101118_AABRAE manganyi_t_Page_086.jp2
1f31695cba676a103cee3e76d4dcefaa
c437c4e6caf7e69557665cdf920c61457fe4a779
F20101118_AABQTV manganyi_t_Page_140.tif
2bfbf73ad6b34581e3e837384e4bfeb8
e4f870348325bb643854dfdb5e1cea198ecc4634
F20101118_AABQUK manganyi_t_Page_151.tif
e175a4a32b9bb531cf539d9cb612e826
31ba07fdf42b8f33b66af16ce8719a4db5a46554
116035 F20101118_AABRAF manganyi_t_Page_087.jp2
a2ea8d9d28f7b354a6273f07eb77d742
534a0fbbc3b556863cde49d8fc4d8cb6f420ff5a
24354 F20101118_AABQTW manganyi_t_Page_138.QC.jpg
26474a7bf9bd2649e4afda5651e1362e
8636e01f173e43468fe65894cfabe4d96955a7d0
F20101118_AABQUL manganyi_t_Page_169.tif
0ddac75a2df10ec7b90e75bbdeb5b41e
db4e339a4b8c85489a9ad69d6dac8eaaf440d99e
118222 F20101118_AABRAG manganyi_t_Page_089.jp2
2d2dbac16e1bcb02bbc1a1eda5ee2452
3f438d6f627f82b4a103516499e065868348c3ea
24563 F20101118_AABQTX manganyi_t_Page_127.QC.jpg
1b4f7b586f6ee223ba3713cf00aaa792
6dbebce9128be8ea3d772b5dcb9dd9354104bc9b
F20101118_AABQVA manganyi_t_Page_186.jp2
7f2fe978eef31db9eb57ad0d809e2538
266959b91fa4abddafe28f28532b84d1bc1d5538
32175 F20101118_AABQUM manganyi_t_Page_102.jpg
aa4d7a52831104959bedd6c84bc008ba
b1a7cba59fe695c3dba915cf0ca3fcadf8ba7c03
115737 F20101118_AABRAH manganyi_t_Page_092.jp2
ccebdaaeb809d124705ae5ba277b719e
bf44ee02eddf0d0a6a247f81091ffcd0699e420b
7023 F20101118_AABQTY manganyi_t_Page_194thm.jpg
711c6fd8883dd24024ef900b928035bc
f0f07d46a18dd697c8d8f7c195f3af6ac8539609
294603 F20101118_AABQVB UFE0021601_00001.xml
1d9491ee243b4efa5a4ed1a23ec63319
cef51be76d661bbc5e8d00bc0f4f5d2a8c6d1fdf
2198 F20101118_AABQUN manganyi_t_Page_024.txt
6f6b07359cc8042550fd25a7dce4acf9
d918d5c3840ae5965849b16512be80d830e484f8
73630 F20101118_AABRAI manganyi_t_Page_093.jp2
00eeb5133b56b961dd56805bb897fa95
b71d2e971183ef531219f099619985df8837e655
54324 F20101118_AABQTZ manganyi_t_Page_051.pro
7fc2d6211a5eb499978480e41a6a0207
f266fc506b30b90ba2ea925838eca0c9d2c6ecba
F20101118_AABQUO manganyi_t_Page_062.tif
571c25b7b69290c73f3ac5ae91a24bed
92fc9da926c675410fdd53812ba268676acf648a
60909 F20101118_AABRAJ manganyi_t_Page_094.jp2
b96f0ddb5490fb00a3c1ddc6f239f080
0488a7f72ae607027aaf3d581816e07feb5e0480
51823 F20101118_AABQUP manganyi_t_Page_150.jpg
a72748bbda0a3fa7541692799ee59e9b
e10ac8b5932d09c59018f01e0a569952c2555de1
58661 F20101118_AABRAK manganyi_t_Page_099.jp2
1b675a36b5e5b0a614b5b26297288483
c411ecc8a6969ec9d749970fe771ab62df1f6c4b
7117 F20101118_AABQVE manganyi_t_Page_003.jpg
63e51636c22e75d31247345d081fc408
183ea182a228afeb0eccadd39f0f8ca672392648
89239 F20101118_AABRAL manganyi_t_Page_100.jp2
8a99c29d14b2f6928358ef61e404bf2d
ab8551616db1d04e839450c58732ead4e1a19814
88193 F20101118_AABQVF manganyi_t_Page_004.jpg
5f8540be84924fe33cab247365dcc6f9
eb53ce1c2fefdea578985295aa280c798f4b7211
2355 F20101118_AABQUQ manganyi_t_Page_094thm.jpg
040558611051cfba8b2e1889fb616320
d1dafdbd37200fc6d6616cb052b2a2d05a5f0f77
118457 F20101118_AABRBA manganyi_t_Page_126.jp2
cb8ce7bdbf2da1b841d9218407cebbcb
0a80f71a3f4765ea41ef9fbd4a613ac480c4555d
40246 F20101118_AABRAM manganyi_t_Page_102.jp2
e5a15012ff91cc66636aefd4a4d9816a
b4e1e6108a27c1e1a4b6f4cf7ea49b6fac5aa82c
83510 F20101118_AABQVG manganyi_t_Page_005.jpg
5092211e8f9ae2b5826937da3e0ae3e5
6784bcbe82841f74f9c5d0fcd8ae6b49b6c07f60
11181 F20101118_AABQUR manganyi_t_Page_157.pro
41728480ef943cdb493fbac2529ef28c
3e9ee275962b363a4a67a8bfe18d5ca807667930
103859 F20101118_AABRBB manganyi_t_Page_127.jp2
4bf1ec5338f86dabea4470f8ac266b98
55ce8a8807025222b910b22b6f5add80f6e902d8
112910 F20101118_AABRAN manganyi_t_Page_106.jp2
e402880c2e86f946597ef163250d99d3
a2c58e516d81439d928fcd57e66a1f81d111e072
13558 F20101118_AABQVH manganyi_t_Page_006.jpg
cd18b22836cf0f67fb1136f3aaca548e
208ad24232609f67a7fb058e206417034a4e6a77
102776 F20101118_AABQUS manganyi_t_Page_185.jpg
7c8a69dd7076c24a02f179edf044aea0
e4e5fd77905b5bc61d79940ef5cb93f5925358fa
102828 F20101118_AABRBC manganyi_t_Page_128.jp2
647a1583d814e40d64e7490f16b74595
fc5a8de6fad7a5fa371df7ce09a200eb9e1a02c3
112706 F20101118_AABRAO manganyi_t_Page_107.jp2
16c145cbef63ac6e9af1cd9d1cccdef0
6e5c843fe81a725e436c042546943842b962e74f
95487 F20101118_AABQVI manganyi_t_Page_010.jpg
868d1587fdf52c4eafc8a898c3f7ff5e
e5dabadd8adb5cf681292ca0c3fdda5f82a27b87
3871 F20101118_AABQUT manganyi_t_Page_009thm.jpg
adcf3b7ebf90771049ab31c1274b471d
2c8292db860cdb1bdad44e0a2ff4925ea5fd3513
107143 F20101118_AABRBD manganyi_t_Page_130.jp2
340639983f3fa200f7d0fefe86753474
49a7808d1acc42854b7d1f426e2bb903e0b448fe
116039 F20101118_AABRAP manganyi_t_Page_108.jp2
6209e0ec51d9417ae5a55df4c3d0dfe5
14b9b4a9bde9913810d0f8d1289c36a5a2263b66
62660 F20101118_AABQVJ manganyi_t_Page_011.jpg
e9342b3caaf861156eb833c7775c0bca
860ee0be30b114fb326162ea5c4df75176392c5e
6390 F20101118_AABQUU manganyi_t_Page_047thm.jpg
e60041c9cdd2cf3203c87a6af03a3641
90c4d4cd3eb6080a9b2c6b677ba6df57c67b1215
116571 F20101118_AABRBE manganyi_t_Page_134.jp2
bfb291c9204c695ab592f71638bb792f
cfd7084ca8026efa8442ba8e4a7f7505e3b579fc
118403 F20101118_AABRAQ manganyi_t_Page_110.jp2
3802e066026da014e49966c36d1b03e0
12e62ed7b972cac6a361ec20dafefc022e2ddcd0
29271 F20101118_AABQVK manganyi_t_Page_012.jpg
c84d861d5680e788aaa536f0a53dd9a3
6fce1cb864d660e29c7abce99fcb8cbdc49d170d
26551 F20101118_AABQUV manganyi_t_Page_033.QC.jpg
72955cdc476fe9c4beb96008df7e5a18
2a552093c3ad52cea967e2304b0bffa38541ffa3
117329 F20101118_AABRBF manganyi_t_Page_139.jp2
235105ca8b12140539eeef1145268f37
10920828342d059104c3861c85ab83a30044ee84
122250 F20101118_AABRAR manganyi_t_Page_111.jp2
63247ed3a9379aa9f761de67f1eaee76
e361288a12c09fba1594708895986c2670cd7757
49391 F20101118_AABQVL manganyi_t_Page_014.jpg
fdf94ea62db863870347743801d6a9df
76e9733f888920d5d3396511642e9168899624b2
F20101118_AABQUW manganyi_t_Page_083.tif
89a255d6ea4055b97c23f27dca0dee80
e9078ff29b283df2e9afaa3b4ff69aa43ee4a94f
21675 F20101118_AABRBG manganyi_t_Page_140.jp2
e1d2489ed7f17409f13fcad61a0195b9
50dbfc08392e7e4bb2ed529f000b71d42ce13d88
118354 F20101118_AABRAS manganyi_t_Page_112.jp2
418577914cf3403efcaa0fbe27bf1614
92b24d320b8425f6157be68e426e2eea7d897e7e
87932 F20101118_AABQWA manganyi_t_Page_048.jpg
9e57605d63ca8700a7476373f9093e49
4efed273f1e5a7ec392cd6724294542bf4f3269d
83306 F20101118_AABQVM manganyi_t_Page_015.jpg
5b205d8f87495134d5c545748795d86b
6671b79a5c7dbec950eb2348aaadac2b8f3388d2
87060 F20101118_AABQUX manganyi_t_Page_117.jpg
fe649962f193c05103bb782c8a2aae4a
904b1b184df4dd6dbc3db6d886ea0aa579c7bebc
618890 F20101118_AABRBH manganyi_t_Page_141.jp2
dc1367ca4376434c0883046e2389a692
01776ecada8c3a014e649f280abaf4c881485268
118983 F20101118_AABRAT manganyi_t_Page_115.jp2
78cf12de7cfabbfb851e8d9f7b26e30c
279bf7ed40b3eea1c157575c8c254b7b7722cd5e
88292 F20101118_AABQWB manganyi_t_Page_051.jpg
857c17c2af30a1468c5378caeed94b2c
272b2cc4a711620c03681b8dcf9f5c88764b5e24
86705 F20101118_AABQVN manganyi_t_Page_020.jpg
b1677cd6a8090c1b1bf6cb1479e7c45c
ddca4ded95f743daf2f3f7de4253b7b0dcc220f3
29488 F20101118_AABQUY manganyi_t_Page_040.QC.jpg
d6b0126a8752d834a8ea491a593be72a
1c70016650f477f470738c11d3a22b04e20496b1
1051880 F20101118_AABRBI manganyi_t_Page_142.jp2
2d68a22e628788be38c3b2027b055ab4
d3bd8c8283d0cc4b30969b8f14332df950e049bf
109879 F20101118_AABRAU manganyi_t_Page_116.jp2
e57c66ac92e804608d73545b5e14edc1
6604211f492c76aa6212afa6aea2f892b5d1ebc8
91381 F20101118_AABQWC manganyi_t_Page_053.jpg
a13a5da8977af82dbd991f94bb60cad1
5b5e73b1c41be8da85a6e562fddb5e6dc3438aac
91383 F20101118_AABQVO manganyi_t_Page_021.jpg
fd5874cca549e5f9179e74d48c669c51
1a93ba87dda724bd737d2732eedd2c6a39a4698c
2206 F20101118_AABQUZ manganyi_t_Page_109.txt
6585d251bd0534c4b4f87dbd27459f67
f6c0cb2a17d1d3329be8cee7d49cc5e69a9fe44e
57373 F20101118_AABRBJ manganyi_t_Page_145.jp2
08fbff0bda09fc5a8e42e6110acb5730
ec7e189d3e88f54b8e6eb852f72654709a8ec200
118357 F20101118_AABRAV manganyi_t_Page_119.jp2
ca63b3a535fc04fd86ebbf3d4ef4a995
d8f890fc209c902b642b74453aa46f7514c2cf65
18575 F20101118_AABQWD manganyi_t_Page_055.jpg
fccfa03e567ed6b68855d93435ecae7f
44e0ea045aa2a6fb37c09ece9a308999ce76b8a2
88495 F20101118_AABQVP manganyi_t_Page_022.jpg
896198d861e82c0c3ceb2267ca680143
768346b4f2d5d4c181dbe8e4ccaec1e7f8de452e
62021 F20101118_AABRBK manganyi_t_Page_147.jp2
60504605e36a8b0248a50ed25f593cdc
5143e4870735876f2f0d46515af5902533a9ee5c
121313 F20101118_AABRAW manganyi_t_Page_120.jp2
a7e42ed65954dafc79494ccd50e50d2b
a290d2ae8894e7afd263436449abd7c4f2d4d80c
27847 F20101118_AABQWE manganyi_t_Page_056.jpg
5c0a164efeb35d7c5dc785613e878410
a7344ffb12bda50c9e1e24b2d6f73a5b65789fa0
87545 F20101118_AABQVQ manganyi_t_Page_025.jpg
80d329c52d228f79f0fc738b75569453
654be266141d80bf0714901e893fcdc363a0383c
55211 F20101118_AABRBL manganyi_t_Page_148.jp2
e0571faf1a04823cac569db422594714
c402b58e43fd58736dffcf81caf2f2e1428ba1f2
114665 F20101118_AABRAX manganyi_t_Page_121.jp2
d1132ca85ac6984b4ebcfa0aed347548
05f240582991929fddf32e2d74172c56ed74cc84
13393 F20101118_AABQWF manganyi_t_Page_057.jpg
0ed07bc27b8f26fae8fcec4d7cfa8a8e
c1868333998be699de3ae1663e89d7dc76e25596
112500 F20101118_AABRCA manganyi_t_Page_168.jp2
b869eeb9139647d01d80fbc4774b5dbd
207c9eb63379c709f06dbbcc1b40da260f275f53
50890 F20101118_AABRBM manganyi_t_Page_151.jp2
343e641247ca60da62a6fb16b7c16e59
2353d9212ab478ed7937d844be79103432305153
117892 F20101118_AABRAY manganyi_t_Page_123.jp2
4539f8c6a01ee33dbc33d71b598f72e1
9151161b899fc2737eb2f17c01f271f11556bd3d
78779 F20101118_AABQWG manganyi_t_Page_058.jpg
15a0d1a904ced927d54b6ca37533501c
6479e89574f3d85e0eb10960fbb2c4d5178fb557
82347 F20101118_AABQVR manganyi_t_Page_028.jpg
aceaaf363668daec968e7a7136e6eabe
cfdfea512c1d16c0ec62ad9346a5703aa2b7aff9
25924 F20101118_AABRCB manganyi_t_Page_171.jp2
e2afbb635d44a2d688e5a6f070c41ab0
a5142bbe04442290eb71df18ecbce1986948c707
55092 F20101118_AABRBN manganyi_t_Page_152.jp2
60ca406fcc05aee0b3377544955349c2
024e13632719df1e8f06df3622282b4a85d4f93a
120991 F20101118_AABRAZ manganyi_t_Page_125.jp2
fd9aa2718500532002b32eb24d1f3dd2
d4e1a600aee17ee953875bb38459cc7b47637ed6
89840 F20101118_AABQWH manganyi_t_Page_063.jpg
5507e9c31e85a00bb9963da2a2bd424a
02dead8eb8c1cd1f1577df552da41f4a65c40b81
82706 F20101118_AABQVS manganyi_t_Page_030.jpg
fa5b9eec57ac7a12cec5e2af2873b7b2
d754ab1a5f363fa060894dc3595d450928656ad8
120814 F20101118_AABRCC manganyi_t_Page_172.jp2
56b5372ff030cee51f24c914dd845506
c182c660d0acc2fc61b277b0e8395cf54532b33f
44120 F20101118_AABRBO manganyi_t_Page_153.jp2
116a611e33c90ba3c52bb92192e8505c
27fdc526cbe2f02b160fe44d69fc7af61ca2d733
87699 F20101118_AABQWI manganyi_t_Page_064.jpg
d3316e7d87e43686fe06bea4a2eb82c6
d09c0ab98f11a49d31ffffcc89d2bb22b01f1fed
88345 F20101118_AABQVT manganyi_t_Page_034.jpg
557b9c9c7cc12b2e1f253b2acc5ec2ea
aae4e78714881eeb8389fa65ad80695602df34d9
106903 F20101118_AABRCD manganyi_t_Page_173.jp2
a3f7b72d34a78fea80474509f9b384f1
2594db3356fd8b28d12125bceeaa9b39b23c9d97
94136 F20101118_AABRBP manganyi_t_Page_155.jp2
9cc9f1ea06fbd0025776fb52e3064f9c
a6e9b3866e63970373c3115f0e78408d7a82aeeb
88333 F20101118_AABQWJ manganyi_t_Page_065.jpg
a8abef020bd70f548dc6b7a9a90bd99c
84b187e341de0c5757770b710087417b4aa30164
90359 F20101118_AABQVU manganyi_t_Page_035.jpg
73bc074634687f8ead59f3809c4d49cd
2b9ab0e41a8544665ca5824f403e50b5b0440fa1
115168 F20101118_AABRCE manganyi_t_Page_178.jp2
9dbea28f98c62b4ca933bc821f0c9481
ea7fb32ccbded73463abefa5ed2998eb1d4f8e82
53132 F20101118_AABRBQ manganyi_t_Page_156.jp2
a15909c9333e38be74514420282fef27
a987d2acd90416f5ef5ca6c92b9a662ab2b7e3d1
91803 F20101118_AABQWK manganyi_t_Page_067.jpg
78faa29e91226d3d06185f2f8c57a14b
846eb3876cdd6d07a1c7a4c494dc691e63898497
86014 F20101118_AABQVV manganyi_t_Page_038.jpg
18e1dcb93a904a19c20a7d186d556232
43e7622337a19131f84431f003cfa36371d81270
107068 F20101118_AABRCF manganyi_t_Page_179.jp2
9c5f3713604aaa2733fa9805ac1fedb6
6e56f234289a45b7ba1d417166956324227265b2
36304 F20101118_AABRBR manganyi_t_Page_157.jp2
eb4563f749e7aa4f4df7d40c32d9ddd3
179772ed0c5ad77115edfa4df6ee211184ba878d
93500 F20101118_AABQVW manganyi_t_Page_040.jpg
6fd3da8430e3286b685004b455bf7c6a
fe7452429d1e2c2da83f031620680b7f11a2a25f
86818 F20101118_AABQWL manganyi_t_Page_068.jpg
7a0ee642010ab728801dc272e2c6e721
4e287e22182ac1974a15292b29f4cbe26c00a10b
117141 F20101118_AABRCG manganyi_t_Page_181.jp2
8d508839b6443540713e61b6d2ebb785
36190dcc983f20e919c80ea9f18ef7dd7260e104
59984 F20101118_AABRBS manganyi_t_Page_158.jp2
03791b58d72b5c136721e110e9e694f5
c1a08b77998d45494bd7480fbf863614798809fa
87270 F20101118_AABQVX manganyi_t_Page_041.jpg
abbe3ac750e69407ac0f1a512796033f
a98c09c5754077e7db436b34f9d0d10e5c22309a
85853 F20101118_AABQXA manganyi_t_Page_106.jpg
b8fdfab261963f91dc233b24bcdde011
497aa970426df18f1357e41b3e8e042e2b5142ed
91640 F20101118_AABQWM manganyi_t_Page_070.jpg
3b9949c93ab594baf4f79d48e1fe3a00
6591c67601efe8792be53a24fcf433aeb3b5b093
1051956 F20101118_AABRCH manganyi_t_Page_184.jp2
73162a5c71a2bee776962635acc9f35a
fdc74eae9813d31fb1b2e72b6ddc31081d05ca60
65186 F20101118_AABRBT manganyi_t_Page_159.jp2
9c3c9dade7c9990ac35f9378a2e34643
dc9d91f888a9b05e34e94af1a918ad5be03a4571
91152 F20101118_AABQVY manganyi_t_Page_046.jpg
bf9e270475b691ac40ad225fb1e8c911
f5380b30078c2e82d9e0f16d51a6b0860e95ee77
90336 F20101118_AABQXB manganyi_t_Page_112.jpg
26efd3073418992488400040b5556b55
24605b039248fbdfe429bfb69daf55d00036b6d8
69598 F20101118_AABQWN manganyi_t_Page_075.jpg
8222d488a70e061d7cfc7b4056d65512
91934b99c578151586043cc6ad48a87aa4d1c4b1
1051974 F20101118_AABRCI manganyi_t_Page_188.jp2
c75753a78a761db07f0eadd89d236562
f4d9013f8cde774bb8577812d5873db77052dcd3
63600 F20101118_AABRBU manganyi_t_Page_160.jp2
8baaa9a53f0559d9d1d49ce5393246a9
87cc77c3c8ed2d0202c9fc2172d68ba37ec9c47f
87005 F20101118_AABQVZ manganyi_t_Page_047.jpg
52aa4d4c902daf0399904b12313ccde8
3080e7e04a000aceb35f0c48616a05fa03346090
86298 F20101118_AABQXC manganyi_t_Page_114.jpg
63217423716dd93450d26c1417a9985f
e690ab0aa9c8fef422af9bf5256a18de9ea75f80
17946 F20101118_AABQWO manganyi_t_Page_078.jpg
4eba84a09180d6ae75df420534dd66a1
45989eba347f840c197e0e8f27d8283295b4d361
F20101118_AABRCJ manganyi_t_Page_189.jp2
330f5795d0cd18635633d9f72ee58075
7d6489185da754e27829aa206096732a906ce910
64721 F20101118_AABRBV manganyi_t_Page_162.jp2
f317a379dd37fef9629aa82548d718b7
2f0bc8b1f19b59730b6fb906c54e426990bc2ad2
90227 F20101118_AABQXD manganyi_t_Page_115.jpg
641a201807d54714db05225916fd2da7
5d20e6510b2c09ab4b5cfe6111cc8a41e104b783
93203 F20101118_AABQWP manganyi_t_Page_084.jpg
09d77f6e297cb540ebd2860c66b1f39f
1d7d19b1a1d37bfec79c981caacc783c680aac53







PERCEIVED GROUP COHESIVENESS AMONG PARTICIPANTS IN
REDISTRIBUTED FARMS OF CAPRICORN DISTRICT, LIMPOPO PROVINCE.





















By

TIRHANI PRUDENCE MANGANYI


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































O 2007 Tirhani Prudence Manganyi


































To my parents Gailes and Paicky, and my siblings Tsudzukani, Hundzukani, and Lemukani









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

These little hands lift many of you to the top positions, but you soon forget about us
(Study participant at Marginalized Trust).

I am indebted to my graduate supervisory committee. I thank Dr Place for being the

dissertation chair and Dr Russo as the co-chair. I thank them for their guidance and undivided

attention that they devoted toward my graduate experience. I am grateful to Dr Irani for her

advice on research design and statistical analyses, and for enriching my graduate committee with

her expertise. Dr Swisher's contribution and guidance with instrument development and research

design made this dissertation possible. It is her constructive criticism that encouraged me to think

outside the 'box'. I thank Drs Swisher and Irani for devoting extra time to reading my

dissertation during write up. I am grateful that Dr Hildebrand was part of the genesis of my

graduate experience when I first came to the University of Florida (UF). I thank him for the

academic support he provided when I first arrived at UF, and I thank him for witnessing the

conception of this dissertation and serving in my graduate committee as the representative of

Farming Systems Research and Extension.

To my sponsors, my thanks go to the Fulbright Commission of South Africa for funding

the first three years of my study. I thank the National Research Foundation of South Africa and

the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, without whose financial support, the field work toward this

dissertation would not have been possible.

I thank the Center for Rural Community Empowerment (CRCE) at the University of

Limpopo (UL) for providing an academic home while I was away from UF. I thank them for the

office space and administrative support as well as the transportation they contributed toward the

field work. I thank Thierry Lassalle (CRCE advisor) for his willingness to discuss and give input

toward my research. I am grateful to the support that Dr Pierre Yves Lemeur provided when he









traveled from France to South Africa. I am indebted to him for the time he spent visiting my

research sites. I thank him for the enlightening discussions and making the visit to the University

of Western Cape possible. I thank the CRCE Coordinator, Ernest Letsoalo. I thank him for his

warm welcome at CRCE, and for being a friend. The team made my stay at CRCE enj oyable.

My special thanks go to my research assistants at CRCE for the time they invested toward this

research. I thank them for their commitment and willingness to travel for hours to and fro study

farms. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr Phatu Mashela at UL for the mentoring support

he provided during my stay at the university. The Pentecostal Holiness Church in Mankweng

provided me with accommodations during my stay at UL, and I thank them for their

contribution.

This dissertation would not have been possible without the participants. I am grateful for

their time and input in this study. I thank them for extending their personal lives toward the

research and for making this dissertation a success. I thank them for affording me the privilege to

conduct this study. I would also like to thank the land reform coordinator in Capricorn District,

Mr. Mokonyama for providing essential information that illuminated on the topics covered in

this study.

To all my friends at UF, I thank them for enriching my experience during my stay in

Gainesville. I thank them for allowing me to share my life with them. To my UF mom, Debra

Anderson who was there for me when I first arrived and opened up her home and shared it with

me. I thank her for giving many of us the hope to hang in there until the very end.

I thank God for my parents and their encouragement for me to take up this challenge. I

thank them for believing in the value of education. To my siblings who always had a sister who









would never quit school, guys, this is the END. I thank my extended family for their prayers and

for loving support. I love you all.

Above all, I give thanks to the Almighty God who set me on a path I would never have

dreamt of in my entire life.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............10......_......


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............12....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 13...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............15.......... ......


Introducti on .................. .............. ...............15.......

Background to the Problem ................. ... ......... ...............16....
History of Rural Livelihood Systems in Limpopo Province ................. ............... .....18
Agricultural Services in Former Homelands ................. ...............19........... ...
Background of Study Area ................ ...............22................
Re searchable Problem .............. ...............24....

Purpose of the Study............... ...............25.
Research Objectives............... ...............2
Research Questions............... ...............2
Significance of the Study ................. ...............28................
Assum options ............... ...............29....
Limitations of the Study .............. ...............30....
Definitions of Terms ................. ...............30........... ....
Sum m ary ................. ...............3.. 1..............

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............33................


Defining Group Cohesiveness .............. .. ... ..... .. .... ... ...........3
The Functional Perspective of Group Cohesiveness in Task Oriented Groups ..............36
Issues of Interpretation on the Study of Cohesiveness ................. ................ ....._.40
Common Property Resources within a Broad Spectrum .............. ...............43....
The Concept of Collective Action ................. ...............46........... ...
Factors Affecting Collective Action............... ...............49.
Land Reform Experiences .............. ...............52....
Sum m ary ................. ...............54.......... ......

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................. ...............58........... ...


Research Design .............. .................... ..........5
Addressing Validity and Reliability .............. ...............60....
Population and Sampling Procedure .............. ...............64....












Research Instruments................ ..... ..............6
Group environment questionnaire (GEQ) .............. ...............65....
Questionnaires and indices ................. ...............66........... ....
Discussion guide for group interviews ................. ...............68........... ...
Pre-testing research instruments ......._....._._.__ .......__... .............6
Data Collection ........._._._..... ..... ...............70....
Data Analysis............... ........ ...........7
Reliability of Measuring Instruments .....__.....___ ..........._ ............7
Summary ............ ..... ._ ...............74....

4 RE SULT S .............. ...............80....


Profile of Study Farms ........._... ...... ..... ...............80...
The Genesis of Study Farms............... ...............80.
Characteristics of Study Farms ........._._ ..... .. ..._._. ...... ...............81
Income Generating Activities and Remuneration of Farm Labor ........._.._... ........._.....82
Demographic Characteristics of Members of Current Farm Groups .............. ..... ..........83
Group Positions and Membership Duration ................. ...............84........... ...
Obj ective One .............. .. ........... .... ...............85.
Structures of Governance in Farm Groups ................. ............ ....... ... ......... ......8
Patterns of Membership, Land Use and Participation in Group Activities ................... ..87
Support Services Provided in Study Farms ....._ ................ ........._ ......8
Objective Tw o ........................... .... .. .... ...............8
Perceived Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits in Study Farms................ ................8
Perceived Degree of Group Governance in Study Farms .............. ....................8
Perceived Degree of Group Cohesiveness in Study Farms ......_ ........... ........ .......90
Individual attractions to group-social............... ..............9
Individual attractions to group-task............... ...............9
Group integration-task............... ............9
Group integration-social .............. ... .. ...............91
Summated scores on perceived group cohesiveness ................ ......._ ..........91
Objective Three .............. .... .... ...............9
Correlations between Variables............... ...............9

Regression Analysis .............. ...............92....
Sum m ary ................. ...............93.......... ......

5 DI SCU SSION OF RE SULT S .............. ............... 106...


Structural Characteristics of Farms ..................... ... ...............10
Membership vs. Participation in Group Activities ................ .......... ................1 06
Evolution of Governance in Study Farms ................. ...............110..............
Income Generating Activities in Study Farms ................. ................. ......... ..11
Provision of Support Services ................. ...............113......... .....
Describing Current Farm Groups ................. ...............116......... .....
Composition of Groups ............... ... ......... .. ....... .... ...... .........1
Are Members of Current Farm Groups Satisfied with Benefits? ................ ...............1 18
The Degree of Perceived Group Governance in Current Farm Groups ................... .....120












The Degree of Perceived Group Cohesiveness ................. ................. ......... 123
Factors Influencing Perceived Group Cohesiveness .......... ................ ...............126
Sum m ary ................. ...............127......... ......


6 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. ...............128


Conclusions................. .............12

Group Membership ................. ...............128................
Obj ective One .............. .. .. ............. .. ...............128..
Structural Characteristics of Study Farms ......_................. ... ........__.......12
Production Activities ................. ...............129....... ......
Provision of Support Services .............. ...............129....
Objective Two .............. ..... ...............130
Satisfaction with Benefits ............._ .......... ...............130....

Group Governance............... .............. 13
Group C ohesiveness ............._ ...._. ...............13. 1.....
Objective Three .............. ...............133....
Im plications .............. ...............135....
Recommendations............... ...........13
Future Research ................. ...............1 8...............
Practitioners ................. ...............139....... ......
Policy ................ ...............1 9...............
Sum m ary ................. ...............139....... ......


APPENDIX


A IRB APPROVAL NOTICE ............. ...... .__ ...............141..


B CRONBACHS ALPHA COEFFICIENTS ................. ...............143...............


C IN STRUMENTATION ................. ...............145......... ......


REFERENCE S .............. ...............183....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............196......... ......












LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Cronbach's Alpha coefficients for individual indices on the group environment
questionnaire ................. ...............75.................

3-2 Reliability analysis on the degree of provision of support services. ................ ................75

3-3 Reliability analysis on the degree of satisfaction with benefits ................. ................ ...75

3-4 Reliability analysis on the degree of group governance ................ ......... ...............76

3-5 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual attractions to the group-social...... .76

3-6 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual attractions to the group-task......... .76

3-7 Reliability analysis on group integration-task .............. ...............77....

3-8 Reliability analysis on individual items of group integration-social .............. .... ........._...77

4-1 Characteristics of study farms legal entities, land size, registered beneficiaries,
initial group sizes, and current group sizes ................. ...............94........... ..

4-2 Income generating activities in study farms .............. ...............95....

4-3 Age and level of education among respondents .............. ...............95....

4-4 Other j obs held by individual members in farm groups ................. .........................96

4-5 Household composition for individual members in farm groups .............. ...................96

4-6 Other sources of income for individual members in farm groups ................ ................. 96

4-7 Group positions held by indivi dual memb ers in farm group s ................ .....................96

4-8 Days spent on the farm each week by individual respondents .............. ....................9

4-9 Summary of items on the degree of support services provided ................. ................ ...97

4-10 Effect of low and high degree of perceived provision of support services in study
farm s .............. ...............97....

4-11 Summary of responses on degree of satisfaction with benefits ................ ................ ...98

4-12 Effect of low and high degree of perceived satisfaction with benefits ................... ...........98











4-13 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived satisfaction with benefits in
respective farms .............. ...............98....

4-14 Summary of responses on degree of perceived group governance ................. ................99

4-15 Effect of low and high degree of perceived degree of group governance .......................99

4-16 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived group governance in
respective farms ........... ......__ .............. 100...

4-17 Summary of responses on individual items of individual attractions to the group-
social .............. ...............100....

4-18 Summary of responses on individual items of individual attractions to the group-task..100

4-19 Summary of responses on group integration-task. ................ .............. ........ .....101

4-20 Summary of responses on individual items of group integration-social.. .................. ...... 101

4-21 Effect of low and high on the degree perceived group cohesiveness .............. ................101

4-22 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived group cohesiveness in
respective farms ................. ................. 102........ ....

4-23 Correlations between variables ................. ...............103...............

4-24 Regression analysis on perceived group cohesiveness ................ .........................103










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Provincial map of South Africa .............. ...............32....

2-1 Conceptual model of group cohesiveness ......___ ... ......___....._ ...........5

3-1 Location of study farms in Limpopo Province .............. ...............78....

3-2 Distribution of study farms between the two municipalities .............. .....................7

4-1 Group development processes that led to the evolution of current groups within the
study farms................ ...............104

4-2 Patterns of land use and participation in study farms .............. .....................105









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PERCEIVED GROUP COHESIVENESS AMONG PARTICIPANTS INT REDISTRIBUTED
FARMS OF CAPRICORN DISTRICT, LIMPOPO PROVINCE.

By

Tirhani Prudence Manganyi

December 2007

Chair: Nick T. Place
Cochair: Sandra Russo
Major: Agricultural Education and Communication

The Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was implemented as part of the land

reform initiative of South Africa. Through the SLAG, self-organized groups became co-owners

of farmland. The purpose of this study was to explore perceived group cohesiveness among

participants in redistributed SLAG farms of Capricorn District, Limpopo Province. Factors

affecting group cohesiveness were also explored.

A cross-sectional research design was employed and data were collected at the farm level

(n=13) and at the individual level (n=137). At the farm level, nominal data were collected on the

structural characteristics of farms and the processes that led to the evolution of current farm

groups. Perceived degree of support services provided was measured as an interval variable. At

the individual level (n=137), perceptions were measured on the degree of satisfaction with

benefits, the degree of group governance, and the degree of group cohesiveness. Group

cohesiveness was measured with a Likert-type scale adapted from Carron, Widmeyer and

Brawley (1985), and other scale response type measures were developed based on operational

definitions.









Thematic content analysis was performed in analyzing nominal data collected through

group discussions. Frequencies and measures of central tendency were used to summarize data.

T-tests for the equality of means and equality of variance were performed in analyzing interval

data. Causal relationships between perceived group cohesiveness and explanatory variables were

identified through stepwise linear regression.

Findings from the study revealed prevalence of high turnover rates (approximately 85%)

among beneficiaries in study farms. Various patterns of participation had evolved and as a result,

both individual as well as group activities were performed. Differences between farms with low

and high degree of satisfaction with benefits acquired from the farms, the degree of group

governance, and degree of perceived cohesiveness were significant. Linear regression analysis

revealed that group governance and satisfaction with benefits were significant predictors of

group cohesiveness. These explanatory variables accounted for 20% of the variance.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Introduction

The democratic government of South Africa was elected in 1994 after centuries of internal

colonialism. The apartheid regime had ruled from 1948-1994 and was abolished in 1994. During

apartheid, ethnic or linguistic groups were segregated and the allocation of resources such as

land was biased. The Natives Land Act of 1913 and other policies were used by the apartheid

regime to perpetuate biased allocations of resources. Such laws restricted ethnic groups from

progressive forms of land access (Binswinger and Deininger, 1993; White Paper on Land Policy,

1998, p. 9). Current political changes endeavor to integrate racial groups into the mainstream

economy, hence, the relevance of land reform.

Subdivided into three segments (i.e., redistribution, restitution, and tenure reform) as

outlined in the White Paper on Land Policy (1998, p. 9), the land reform movement sought to

alter the precedents set by political policies of the past. Land redistribution in particular allocated

farm land to labor tenants, farm workers, and new entrants to agriculture. Binswanger and

Deininger became the proponents for a market facilitated approach toward land redistribution.

Consequently, willing sellers offered land and subsequent transactions were negotiated based on

market standards. Beginning in 1995, the Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was

instituted as a pilot program but was discontinued in 2001. This instrument enabled poor

civilians to gain access to land through government grants. The selection criteria of eligible

beneficiaries was in part based on an income ceiling of R1,500 per month (Borras, 2003;

Deininger, 1999; White Paper on Land Policy, 1998, p. ix), whereas the total grant amount of

R15,000 (US$3,300), later increased to R16,000, was allocated to eligible beneficiaries. Thus,









group-based acquisition of land became a feasible way to allocate government grants efficiently

(NDA-NDLA, 2005, p. 30).

Land redistribution was intended to allocate 30% of land by 2015 (NDA-NDLA, n.d. p. 5).

It was anticipated at the onset that the policy approach might be tweaked as the implementation

progressed (Lund, 1996, p. 547). Consequently, a new policy approach was adopted as of

February 2000 (Cousins, 1999, p. 3), and SLAG was replaced by the Land Redistribution for

Agricultural Development (LRAD). SLAG had been associated with inefficiencies such as slow

delivery rate, poorly appraised and supported projects, misguided attempts at collective

agriculture, and insufficient impact on the livelihoods of beneficiaries (NDA-NDLA, 2005, p.

30). Nevertheless, SLAG had delivered farmland to approximately 80% of beneficiaries (NDA-

NDLA, 2005, p. 25) at the time it was discontinued. Hall (2004, preface) reported that in total,

only 3.1% of the 30% target amount of land was redistributed by 2004. SLAG focused on

allocating land both for settlement as well as agricultural purposes, whereas LRAD allocates land

particularly to emerging commercial farmers (Hall, 2004, p 28). Hall asserted that LRAD strives

to limit the size of farm groups; however, experiences differed across provinces and group-based

acquisition of land had remained a viable approach to land redistribution (pp. 29-30).

Background to the Problem

Binswanger and Deininger (1993) noted that land reform programs around the world were

initiated after WWII as a way to allocate farm land to peasants, whereas in Sub-Saharan Africa,

such initiatives can be traced back to historical events of colonization (Griffin, Khan and

Ickowitz, 2002). Presently, livelihood systems in Sub-Saharan Africa are largely dependent upon

agriculture. Based on the 1998 development indicators, the World Bank (2000, p.14) reported

that 67% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa was predominantly rural, and agriculture

continued to be the driving engine for economic growth (FAO, 2002, Section 1.4). The FAO also










reported that the agricultural sector provided 60% of employment in this part of the world.

Interventions such as the Green Revolution had aimed to boost food production levels; however,

agricultural development trends demonstrated a decline in agricultural production. Fifty-percent

of the food insecure countries around the world are located in this region (FAO, 1998). Failure to

achieve efficiency in food production led to chronic food insecurity status (FAO, 1998) with

persistent threats of famine (Devereux and Maxwell, 2003, p. 1). To date, Sub-Saharan Africa

remains a world region with widespread challenges yet to be addressed.

Nonetheless, South Africa paints a slightly different picture in comparison to other

countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. At a national level, the country is food secure (van Rooyen,

Kirsten, Vink and Simbi, 1996, p. 33), and is a net exporter of food products (Country Studies,

2003; FAO, 2003; Schmidt, 2005), and the infrastructure is well-developed. However, the image

generally portrayed at the national level may not be true for all segments of the nation (Aliber,

Kirsten, Maharajh, Nhlapo-Hlope and Nkoane, 2006; Leibbrandt, Levinsohn and McCrary, 2005,

p. 1; Adato, Carter and May, 2004, p. 1; Woolard, 2002, pp. 1-3). Recent reports established that

the democratic dispensation continues to be characterized by high levels of economic disparity

(Aliber et al., 2006; Adato et al., 2004, p. 1).

A more recent and emerging challenge in South Africa has been the HIV/AIDS pandemic

which continues to erode the social fabric in the nation (UNAIDS, 2006). The prevalence of the

epidemic has brought to the attention of development practitioners that agriculture ceased to be a

technical issue only (Jayne, Villarreal, Pingali and Hemrich, 2004, p. 1; FAO, 2003, p. 10).

Therefore, agricultural development is confronted with complex circumstances. Although the

"pro-poor" growth strategy to agricultural development has recently been adopted and begins to

untangle the multiple dimensions of poverty (DFID, 2005, p. 74; Christoplos, Ambridge and










Zellweger, 2003, p.1; Holmen, 2003, p. 22), breaking the poverty trap faced by multitudes of

citizens remains a challenge.

Presently, the question of agrarian reform in South Africa remains a contentious one. By

2005, agriculture's contribution to the GDP was estimated at about 3.3% and 7.2% to formal

employment (GCIS, 2005, p. 125). The problem of increased rural-urban migration evokes

debates that are linked to the question of whether agrarian reform should be continued as an

appropriate strategy to foster rural development (Aliber et al., 2006). However, a significant

proportion (47%) of the population remains in rural areas (World Bank, 2000) and engages in

agricultural production (Aliber et al., 2006). Thus, interventions to bolster the rural economy are

warranted.

To date, land redistribution is one of the tools that can alter the precedents set by past laws

under apartheid. Such biased policies discouraged entrepreneurial production activities such as

sharecropping among marginalized racial groups. Eventually, the vitality of the rural economy

was disabled (Binswanger and Deininger, 1993). Binswanger and Deininger noted that food

security became a matter of concern as early as 1925. Consequently, agricultural production in

rural areas was limited only to subsistence production with restricted land ownership.

History of Rural Livelihood Systems in Limpopo Province

Under the new political dispensation, Limpopo Province is one of the nine provincial

governments (Figure 1-1). As a new government, the province is comprised of four former

Homelands or Bantustans, namely, Gazankulu, Lebowa, and Kwa-Ndebele, and the "nominal

independent" Venda. According to the Natives Land Act of 1913, Homelands or Bantustans

were reserves created to separate ethnic groups (Lahiff, 1997, p. vii).

There were ten Homeland territories that were concentrated over 13% of South Africa's

land surface, whereas over 80% of land was owned by the white minority (van Rooyen et al.,










1996, p. 33). Only 7.9% of the land surface in Homeland territories could be used for agricultural

production (Binswanger and Deininger, 1993), and access to land by households was only

limited to as much as 1.3 hectares as compared to 1,570 hectares of land access by the white

minority (Deininger and May, 2000, p. 5, Deininger, 1999).

Typical in Homeland territories were unfavorable economic and social conditions.

Limpopo Province had become one of the impoverished provinces in the country (Lahiff, 1997,

p. vii). Dimensions of poverty manifested in the province and other similar areas were typified

by limited livelihood strategies (NDA, 2002, p. 25). The maj ority of rural dwellers derived

meager production outputs, and agriculture had become a livelihood strategy that was

supplemented by remittances and wages from low-skilled labor (Binswanger and Deininger,

1993). Therefore, rural dwellers had become vulnerable to food insecurity with inadequate safety

nets (NDA, 2002, p. 19).

Due to urban migration of males, women had become de facto heads of households. Such

trends caused family food production and self-reliance strategies to dwindle. To date, the

ramifications of previous arrangements are far-reaching. The "duality" created by biased political

policies of the past and their effects continue to be felt. This situation is exacerbated by current

market policies that disregard the poorest segments of the nation (Aliber et al., 2006; Adato et

al., 2004, p. 2).

Agricultural Services in Former Homelands

The agricultural sector of South Africa was built along racial lines (White Paper on

Agriculture, 1995, p. 2; van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 35) and such policies can be traced back to

the early 1900s. Government policies on agriculture have not been scale-neutral; and commercial

agriculture was enriched at the expense of subsistence production. Presently, the government

seeks to strike a balance and mitigate the effects of economic biases on the rural poor.









Government services such as extension have not been immune to these effects and the

extension service continues to struggle in an attempt to adapt to current circumstances. The

legacies of the past have created the reality of the present day. Inasmuch as Homeland territories

were marginalized to a great extent, extension services were also limited. Extension operated

under working conditions that were not conducive to optimal performance (Machete and Mollel,

1999, p. 340). Primarily, colleges of agriculture in former Homeland territories provided training

for extension officers (White Paper on Education, 1995), who then became public servants in

Homeland territories. Extension officers with either high school or college diplomas provided

services to clients whose interest in farming had dwindled due to off-farm employment

opportunities. Furthermore, the education system in agricultural colleges was similar to that

offered to vocational teachers (Douglas, 2005), and trainees were hardly prepared for real world

experiences. Consequently, lack of appropriate farmer support services became the norm (White

Paper on Agriculture, 1995, p. 20).

Extension services in the past did not foster a culture of collaborating with institutions such

as universities, research and non-governmental organizations (Machete and Mollel, 1999, p. 343;

van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 31). Therefore, it can be anticipated that the shift toward embracing

rural populations into the mainstream is yet an enormous challenge for the current extension

system. It has previously been observed that extension officers in Limpopo Province needed

more educational development and improved working conditions (Bruening et al., 2002). At the

same time, extension continues in recent years to search for an appropriate strategy to suit

diverse audiences (Duvel, 2004). Also, calls to strengthen the role of the extension service within

land redistribution have been raised (Aliber, 2003; Deininger, 1999).









Tearing down the walls of methodological influences of the past is yet another challenge.

The purposive transfer of skills and information (Nagel, 1997) based on technology transfer

(T& T) had become the sine qua non of the extension framework. However, the impact achieved

from years of investments in agricultural development did not yield substantial results. Hence,

development practitioners began to ponder in search for new ways to address such concerns

(Collinson, 2000, p. 3; Whyte, 1986, p. 1), and the Farming Systems Research and Extension

approach (FSR-E) was birthed out of such efforts. According to Collinson, FSR is a

methodology that helps researchers to gain a better understanding of the technology development

process particularly by involving the intended end users of technology (p. 1). The FSR-E

approach began to shed insights regarding the limitations of technology adoption among agrarian

societies. As a result, agricultural development began to make a shift. Perhaps efforts to reinforce

FSR-E in South Africa dwindled over the time (van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 32).

Agricultural research and development (R&D) evolved from a top-down approach to being

more perceptive toward the targeted end-users of technology. Participatory processes facilitate

the provision of services that are user-oriented (Duvel, 1996; Graforth and Jones, 1997). In South

Africa, provision of extension services has been called to embrace new approaches to service

delivery (White Paper on Agriculture, 1995, p. 20).

Apart from educational services, in 2004 the government began to provide financial

assistance to emerging farmers in particular. The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program

(CASP) (NDA-DLA, 2005, p. 45; NDA, 2004, p. 1) aimed to allocate 70% of the budget to

infrastructure support for redistributed farms. However, skeptics have expressed that CASP may

be short-lived like the Broadening Access to Agriculture Thrust initiative (BATAT) of the 1990s

(Development Report, 2005, p. 74). Therefore, the impact made by CASP remains to be seen.










Background of Study Area

Limpopo Province is the only province with the numerous former Homelands consolidated

under one rubric. In 1994, the province was identified as one of the poorest in the country

(Limpopo Growth and Development Strategy, 2005, p. 3). Recently, the province became the

fastest growing economy in the country (Limpopo Growth and Development Strategy, p. 12).

Limpopo Province generated about 6.5% of the national GDP in 2002 (Statistics South Africa,

2003, p. 53). Notably, three sectors, including mining, agriculture and tourism have been

identified as niche economic avenues. Mining and quarrying industries in the province account

for the largest contribution (24%) to the provincial economy, whereas agriculture contributed

about 3% (Statistics South Africa, 2003, p. 62).

According to the National Department of Agriculture and Statistics South Africa (2005)

approximately 50% of farming in Limpopo was on a subsistence basis. Out of the six districts in

the province, Vhembe had the largest proportion of households (approximately 77%) engaged in

agricultural production (Provide, 2005, p. 6). Subsistence farming was commonly centered on

cattle husbandry and cropping systems (FAO, 2004). Mixed crop-livestock systems are generally

practiced in semi-arid zones (Tapson, 1996, p. 265). The FAO noted that mixed farming

production enterprises in the province were typical. Subsistence farmers generally operated

communal land with no formal ownership (Lahiff, 1997, p. xvi), whereas contiguous land parcels

may have been fragmented into smaller plots.

Maize is the main crop of Limpopo Province and is generally cultivated under dryland

conditions dependent on rain (FAO, 2004). The Rural Survey of 1997 established that the

maj ority of rural populations are engaged in agricultural practices for food production rather than

for trading. However, emerging commercial farming practices are increasingly becoming

common (FAO, 2004).










Spatially, the province covers 123,910 km2 representing approximately 10% of the

country's land surface (1 219 912 km2). The lowveld plains are vast and a range of mountains

rises from the highland plateau in the south and center of the province (Britannica, n.d.). The

Drakensberg mountain escarpment divides the province between low and high rainfall areas. The

mixed bushveld covers a great part of the province to the west and rainfall ranges between 3 50-

650mm, whereas the north-eastern mountain grassland has rainfall ranging from 700-1100 mm

(Low and Rebelo, 1996, pp. 26-46). The mean annual rainfall in the province is estimated at 527

mm. Rainfall patterns are erratic and unimodal occurring over the summer season (October

through April). The end of the rainy season also marks the beginning of dry winter months with

minimal vegetation for livestock consumption. Therefore, the quality and quantity of livestock

fodder fluctuates greatly.

The climate in the province is subdivided into two seasons, summer and winter. The

temperatures during summer months are generally warm, and day temperatures may exceed

400C in some parts of the province (FAO, 2004). The winters are usually mild, but temperatures

may fall below 00 C. The mean minimum daily temperature in most areas lies between 18-220 C

in the summer and 5-100 C in the winter.

According to the farm plans perused, study farms in Molemole Municipality and two of the

farms in Polokwane (i.e., Monyamane and Lwala le Meetse) were located along the boundary

between the Polokwane plateau and the lowveld. These farms were located in a mountainous

area with elevations ranging between 1200m above sea level and valleys of 900m above sea

level. The mean annual rainfall ranges from 600 to 800mm, and the natural vegetation occurring

in this part of the province is classified as sour mixed bushveld. Study farms in Polokwane

Municipality are situated in the dry highveld with average rainfall between 350-400mm. The










topography in Polokwane is flat with gentle slopes that may require soil conservation structures

in case soil erosion occurs.

Researchable Problem

South Africa is undergoing a complex and formidable change at the present time. This

transition coincides with change occurring throughout the world. Changes around the world are

political, economic, technological, environmental and social, and continue to evolve (Chambers,

1997, p. 3). Rivera and Cary (1997) concur and assert that the 1980s marked the turning point in

the provision of public services due to structural and adjustment programs (SAPs) introduced by

the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Developing countries in particular were

encouraged to adopt such policy initiatives. These policies encompassed the aspects of market

liberalization, privatization and decentralization (Razavi, 2005, p. ix). However, the change in

the macroeconomy- resulted in disruptive social consequences marked by rising levels of social

inequality and marginalization (Razavi, 2005, p. 2).

In contrast to other parts of the world, SAPs were implemented to a limited scale in South

Africa, and the programs were not donor initiated (van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 1). The country

witnessed the fall of the hegemonic apartheid regime, and consequently continued to socially

construct itself through various policy initiatives. This transition brings with it new opportunities

as well as challenges, and prevalent in this process are the throes of transformation and change.

The transformation is marked by massive policy experimentation, whereas the quest to

seek pathways based on context-specific experiences is indispensable. Of particular importance,

the land policy in the country continues to be tweaked and to evolve, and empirically generated

evidence should continue to inform policy formulation in the area. Presently, one of the measures

used to gauge the success of implementation processes is the pace at which farmland is allocated.

However, inasmuch as administrative processes are crucial to ensure speedy delivery of land,










experiences beyond land acquisition have even greater ramifications. Therefore, this study

explores the degree to which members of farm groups have continued their participation in the

study farms, and also explores the factors influencing continued participation.

The present study suggests that despite resource endowments in redistributed farms,

aspects of group processes and the extent to which members of farm groups benefit largely

dictate the extent to which members of farm groups will continue their participation. This study

does not intend to underscore the importance of other factors in agricultural production. Quiggin

(1995) asserted that agricultural production is highly dependent upon factors that are beyond the

control of the farmers and such include biological and climatic conditions. Beyond that, whether

farmers can sell their produce in the market, let alone meet the quality standards required by the

market is yet another factor. Byrnes (2003, p. 209) brings our attention to the importance of

providing support services in order for farmers to increase production and possibly generate

income. Furthermore, Aliber (2003) and Deininger (1999) pointed out the need to provide

extension services in redistributed farms, and coordination between relevant government

departments should be improved. Challenges facing redistributed farms cut across all spheres.

Nonetheless, the interest of this study is centered on the cohesiveness of the groups in study

farms.

The limitations associated with SLAG are clearly outlined (NDA-DLA, 2005, p. 30).

Efforts to evaluate the performance of land redistribution to date are commendable, but there is

need to conduct research that engages scholarship and promotes dialogue among scholars

regarding pertinent issues on land redistribution.

Purpose of the Study

As a nation in its democratic infancy, it is questionable if South Africa will use its

development programs to create a new identity. The country is undergoing a process of social









construction, whereby the integration of the rural poor into the mainstream economy remains a

challenge. The country presently is experiencing a "trial and error" environment of policy

changes on a massive scale. One of the most pressing issues confronting the nation is

dismantling the legacies of the past by reducing the socio-economic gap between different

segments of the nation. Through continued engagement, beneficiaries of land redistribution

could potentially acquire socially desirable benefits.

The current LRAD is expected to speed up the delivery of land and alter land ownership

patterns. It is imperative, however, to devote attention to the processes that unfold beyond land

acquisition. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that beneficiaries in redistributed farms

are faced with challenges and that such difficulties can be traced back to the discrepancies of

policy formulation (Borrass, 2003; Deininger and May, 2000, Deininger, 1999). An

understanding of how farm groups evolve over time gives a point of departure toward

determining the behavioral intent of current group members to continue their participation.

Evidence of turnover in redistributed farms has been reported in previous studies

(McCuster, 2004). However, there has been a temptation to assess success stories based on

turnover rates (NDA-NDLA, 2005, p. 30). This study postulates that current farm groups can be

viewed as a cohort that can offer insightful lessons for other redistribution programs. This study

also posits that turnover rate is an inadequate assessment, rather an indication of natural

processes that are inherent in the process of group development. Therefore, current farm groups

may be understood on the basis of group development processes that occur over time.

This study illustrates that the formation of groups cannot be limited to a single event, but to

a series of events that determine continued engagement by members in groups (Tuckman, 1965).

This study further explores important features of group processes such as governance of









information and rules-in-use, satisfaction with benefits, importance of benefits acquired, to

mention a few. The influence of these processes on continued their participation in farm groups

is explored. This study suggests that strategic interactions among group members as well as the

degree to which members of farm groups benefit are important determinants of the intent to

remain in farm groups.

An area that remains largely untapped in redistributed farms is that of "groups" research.

Rather than relying on speculations, group cohesiveness is a promising tool that lends itself to

data gathering at various stages of group development. This exploratory study endeavors to lay

the foundation and provoke scholarship in the area of 'groups' research and the formation of

groups. Such investigations could begin to elucidate the processes that are inherent in the

formation of groups.

In the grand scheme of things, efforts by the South African government to scale up

production activities of the farms may not achieve much if the conditions of farms are not

conducive for the performance of related farm tasks. Although the current approach to land

redistribution (LRAD) discourages group-based acquisition of farm land, Hall (2004, p. 29-30)

found out with a few exceptions that group sizes under LRAD were comparable with those of

SLAG. Therefore, understanding perceived group cohesiveness among members of farm groups

is imperative.

Research Objectives

* To describe perceptions on group development processes that led to the evolution of
current farm groups and the degree of support services provided.

* To describe characteristics of individual group members, perceptions on the degree of
satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, and group cohesiveness.

* To describe the variance explained by specific factors on the influence of perceived group
cohesiveness among group members.










Research Questions

* What are the processes that led to the evolution of current farm groups, and the degree to
which support services are provided?

* What is the degree of satisfaction with benefits, degree of group governance, and group
cohesiveness?

* What are the factors influencing perceived group cohesiveness?

Significance of the Study

Theoretically, redistributed farms can be classified under the rubric of common property

resources (CPRs) and collective action (CA). The CPR' s are described based on their

characteristics of co-ownership, co-usage, open access, and subtractability (Myatt and Wallace,

2003, 2004; Theesfeld, 2004; Tuomel, 2003; Jodha, 1986; Hardin, 1968). Of particular

importance, exclusion from usage in CPR' s may be difficult to enforce, whereas co-usage

generally leads to the depletion of CPR' s. Collective action has been studied from a wide array

of disciplines. However, there has been a temptation to extrapolate and generalize Eindings from

specific contexts (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003). Attempts to study group related variables in

redistributed farms has been limited. Thus, continued efforts to generate empirical evidence from

such contexts are warranted.

In the case of redistributed farms, ownership is based on property rights, whereas access is

limited only to those with officially recognizable status as defined for example by the CPA Act

(1996). Therefore, the theory of CA has limitations in relation to redistributed farms. Research

on farmers' organizations in particular has been limited and did not result in an organized body

of knowledge (Byrnes, 1997, p. 211). The current study focuses on the construct of group

cohesiveness.

Group cohesiveness is recognized as the most studied small group construct

(Bettenhausen, 1991). Because the formation of groups is pervasive across spheres of society,









deriving a uniform definition of group cohesiveness has been a challenge (Chang and Bordia,

2001, Friedkin, 2004). Carron (1982) defined group cohesiveness as "the tendency of a group to

stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and obj ectives," whereas Festinger

(1950) defined cohesiveness as "the resultant of all forces acting on members to remain in a

group." The latter definition suggests that cohesiveness is an outcome variable. Hence, this study

treats cohesiveness as an outcome variable.

Group cohesiveness is a property of the group but it is manifested at the individual level

(van Berger and Koekebakker, 1959). As a result, perceptions of individual group members are

measured at the individual level. However, groups generally operate under systems that are

complex, adaptive and dynamic (McGrath, Arrow and Berdahl, 2000). Groups should be located

within antecedent conditions that tend to influence continued participation in group activities

(Friedkin, 2004). Therefore, research designs and methodologies that support exploratory studies

of complex ou structures should be identified and amalgamated.

Earlier research on group cohesiveness has been faced with methodological challenges,

and researchers have grappled with determining whether group cohesiveness is an antecedent or

consequence (Chang and Bordia, 2001). Other methodological challenges on the construct stem

from its multidimensional nature (Chang and Bordia, 2001; Dyaram and Kamalanabhan, 2005;

Carron et al., 1985). This study considers group cohesiveness as a latent construct with multiple

indicators (Bollen and Hoyle, 1990), and factors influencing group cohesiveness are described.

Assumptions

This study considered the individuals present on the farms at the time of the study as

members of farm groups. Group members participated in the study voluntarily. This study

further assumed that participation in group activities on the farms implied some degree of

perceived group cohesiveness. It was assumed that participation in group activities resulted in










acquisition of benefits by group members. Furthermore, an assumption was made that farm

groups were structured based on rules and regulations that govern them. The need for support

services, production inputs as well as access to the market was also assumed.

Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted in Capricorn District, one of the six districts of Limpopo

Province. Due to the prevalence of high turnover rates in redistributed farms, the current study

treated study farms (n=13) as a population. This limits generalizability of the study findings.

Also, ongoing activities on the farms included both individual as well as collective activities.

Therefore, the boundary of a group is not clearly defined. Respondents participated in the study

voluntarily, and participation was limited to those present on the farms at the time of the study.

The distance from the University of Limpopo where the researcher was based did not

permit frequent interaction with respondents. Gaining entrance to the farms and building rapport

was also a challenge for the researcher. And, the financial costs of conducting the study were

great due to spatial distributions of farms.

The researcher had spent some time in the United States; therefore, slight cultural

differences were anticipated. Furthermore, it was anticipated that language might be a slight

obstacle because of the time of absence of the researcher from South Africa. However, review

sessions held with research assistants helped to clarify the meaning and interpretation of study

questions in the local language of Sepedi.

Definitions of Terms

Group cohesiveness The tendency of a group to "stick together."

Communal Property Associations (CPAs) Juristic persons, who acquire, hold and manage
property on the basis of a written constitution.

Beneficiaries Individuals who received government grants and became co-owners of
redistributed farmland.










Extension service Provision of educational entitlements to farming communities by the
government.

Homelands territories Territories that were created in order to segregate ethnic groups as
specified by the Natives Land Act of 1913.

LRAD Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development. This is a market-assisted program,
and beneficiaries are provided with matched grants to qualify for land acquisition. This program
focuses particularly on emerging farmers.

Livelihood systems A composite of all activities that a household can produce and reproduce.

Natives Land Act of 1913 Laws that restricted ethnic groups from progressive forms of
agricultural production. This law also resulted in the creation ethnic reserves for residential
purposes.

SLAG Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant. SLAG was facilitated through allocation of
government grants to eligible households. Beneficiaries of grants were registered in the same
government database kept on the housing subsidy, and beneficiaries could not benefit from both.
This program is market-assisted and its focus was on access to land.

Subsistence farming Farming for the purposes of home consumption and sale in case of surplus
produce.

Summary

This chapter introduced the context of agricultural and rural development in South Africa

and Limpopo Province. The basis of the land redistribution based on political policies of the past

was highlighted. The purpose and significance of the study were presented and the assumptions

that were made by the researcher and limitations that threatened the study were outlined. The

following chapter presents the theoretical and the conceptual frameworks that underpinned the

study .
















Mozambique






Botswana




I~~~~~~~~_ .-. [ II. 'C~~~d




IrN

NorthernCape South ca le t a e



-Eastern Cape


IWestern Cape i

0 500 Kilometers







Figure 1-1 Provincial map of South Africa









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents a review of the literature. It begins by introducing the construct of

group cohesiveness. Both empirical and theoretical advancements in the study of group

cohesiveness are presented. The concept of common property resources and collective action is

discussed. The chapter concludes by highlighting land reform experiences.

Defining Group Cohesiveness

Groups are pervasive across contexts and they are the sine qua non in the study of

cohesiveness. Scholarship in the study of cohesiveness, however, has been well grounded in the

disciplines of sociology and social psychology (Dyaram and Kamalanabhan, 2005; Friedkin,

2004; Dion, 2000). Festinger et al. (1950) laid the groundbreaking work and championed the

study of group cohesion from a sociological perspective. The work by Festinger and colleagues

became prominent and continues to influence contemporary work in the area. Festinger and

colleagues defined cohesiveness as "the totalforces acting on people to remain in a group" (p.

164). This definition was centered on the degree to which a group mediates goals for its

members and its resultant attractiveness to the members. According to Festinger et al., there are

factors that determine whether a group lives or dies at the time a group forms. Groups are

developed through membership, as well as the activities they engage in. Festinger and his

colleagues saw groups in a functional way.

Therefore, groups are conceptualized in terms of their purposes to achieve some output

through a process that entails engagement in the performance of tasks. However, it must be noted

that membership in a group is inspired by forces such as individual needs, whereas the nature of

the task determines the level of cohesiveness in any particular group. These factors are

antecedent to cohesion (Carron, 1980, p. 240), and cohesion becomes relative depending on the










goals and tasks of a group (Dion, 2000). According to English, Griffith and Steelman (2004),

types of tasks performed are divided into divisible and unitary tasks. English and colleagues

asserted that divisible tasks have been described as those "where it is feasible to further divide

the labor, and unitary tasks are those where a division of labor is not feasible."

Enoch and McLemore (1967) built upon Festinger and others and defined cohesion as the

"attraction to the group which was assumed to be comprised of intrinsic (socio-emotional)

attraction and instrumental (means and source) attraction." Therefore, two dimensions of

cohesiveness notably, social and task were identified. The bidimensionality of cohesiveness is

consistent with the Festinger et al. view that held that a group can be a "source" of rewards as

well as "means" of rewards (Carron, 1982). Carron et al. (2004) and Carron (1982) indicated that

the concept of bidimensionality is based on processes associated with the development of social

relationships and processes associated with the achievement of group obj ectives. As a result,

cohesion-as-attraction-to-group perspective was also endorsed by others such as Bakeman and

Helmreich (1975).

Dion (2000) asserts that Festinger and colleagues' perspective has been altered, though in

some subtle ways. Dion claimed that the shift has been in the form of recognizing that

cohesiveness is not only the precursor (i.e., Hield of forces) but it was discovered that

cohesiveness was also consequential; thus, binding members of a group together. Therefore,

forces acting on individual members were then termed "attractions to the group." However, a

caveat with the term "attraction" has been that there was a tendency to confuse it with cohesion

leading to erroneous explanations (Enoch and McLemore, 1967). Carron (1982) suggested that

the measure of cohesion based upon attraction failed to explain cohesiveness in situations

characterized by negative effect.









Carron et al. (1985) defined cohesion as a "dyna~nic process which is reflected in the

tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and

objectives." It is important to note that Carron and associates located the meaning of

cohesiveness within the social context of a group. Meanwhile, Mullen and Copper (1994)

adapted Festinger' s (1950) definition of cohesiveness as the "I i' /dr(ian of all forces acting on

nzenbers to remain in a group." Therefore, there has been a shift to the view of cohesiveness as

an outcome variable (Friedkin, 2004).

The study of cohesiveness advanced over time and Carron et al. (1985) was among others

who contributed to this advancement. These authors conceptualized cohesiveness based on two

predominant types of cognitions. Group integration (GI) refers to the "individual's perceptions

about the closeness, similarity, and bonding within the group as a whole." Individual attractions

(AT) to the group, represents the individual's perceptions about personal motivations acting to

retain them in the group. The are four manifestations of cohesion: group integration-task (GI-T),

group integration-social (GI-S), individual attractions to the group-task (ATG-T), and individual

attractions to the group-social (ATG-S). The conceptual framework of group cohesiveness is

presented in Figure 2-1. The meta-analysis conducted by Dion (2000) on cohesiveness concluded

that task and social dimensions were central to a multidimensional view of cohesion and that this

view reflected consensus among researchers.

Conceptually, cohesiveness is a property of the group but it is nzanifested at the individual

level in attractions to the group, to its members, to its tasks and goals (Carron et al., 2003; Dion,

2000; van Bergen and Koekebakker, 1959). Given their viewpoints, the work by Festinger et al.

(1950) became contentious. Carron (1980, p. 235) identified two criticisms that were associated

with Festinger and colleagues. One criticism was concerned with using an individual as a unit of









reference rather than the group. Another criticism is based on the complexity of operational

definitions based on the term "total field of all forces." Carron also indicated that arguments

were also centered on interpersonal attraction to a group as being an inadequate measure of

cohesiveness.

Critiques against Festinger and colleagues were not meant to discredit the importance of

interpersonal relationships. A point of view on the role of interpersonal attraction is emphatic

and has been put forward by Katz, Lazer, Arrow, and Contractor (2004). Katz and associates

asserted that relationships between individuals are important but relationships to everybody else

within the group are imperative because they will largely determine the flow of information and

resources. Wittenbaum et al. (2004) claimed that the flow of information within a group either

contributes to or inhibits group decision-making and problem-solving effectiveness. Therefore,

group members should be informed in order to contribute to decision-making as well as problem-

solving processes.

It has been agued that task oriented groups are likely to put more emphasis on the

completion of the task than interpersonal attraction (Anderson, 1975). Shared beliefs among

group members can be expected to be stronger in groups with more complex task

interdependence (Carron et al., 2003). However, it has been suggested that overt behavior may

not be consistent with the behavioral intent (beliefs, attitudes, etc.) of individual members (Alavi

and McCormick, 2004).

Group cohesiveness has been defined from various perspectives. The following section

presents group cohesiveness from the functional perspective.

The Functional Perspective of Group Cohesiveness in Task Oriented Groups

The functional perspective of groups is concerned with the purpose for which groups are

formed (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Cartwright and Zander (1968, pp. 53-56) outlined conditions









that lead to the formation of groups. Cartwright and Zander differentiated between groups that

are formed deliberately, formed spontaneously, as well as those that are formed due to external

designation. Groups that are formed deliberately are further subdivided to include work groups

(Table 2-1). Accordingly, work groups are created to perform tasks more efficiently through the

pooling and coordination of the behavior and resources of a collection of individuals. However,

group formation precedes developmental stages that determine the life span of a group.

The development cycle of groups is influenced by different factors (Chang and Bordia,

2001). Tuckman (1965) identified different stages in the group development process. These

stages include forming, storming, norming, and performing. According to Tuckman, groups

identify the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviors at the forming stage, whereas

storming is characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues with emotional

response in the task sphere. These behaviors are symbolic of the resistance to group influence

and task requirements. During norming, cohesiveness develops, as new standards evolve, and

new roles are adopted, at the performing stage, the interpersonal structure becomes the tool of

task activities. At the performing level, roles become flexible and functional and the group

energy is channeled to the task. Structural issues are resolved at the final stage and the structure

then becomes supportive of task performance. Through these stages, the group becomes a

functional instrument for dealing with the task, and the group overcomes interpersonal problems

(Tuckman, 1965).

Given the group development process, groups could either gain resilience or they may

become "wobbly" and eventually fail. Therefore, the longevity of group life span will determine

whether a group could foster an environment for viable performance to take place or not. Groups

evolve, and the stage of development reached in a group will determine in large part the extent to









which members of groups continue their participation. Given the multidimensional nature of

cohesiveness, the development cycle of the group tends to dictate the type of cohesiveness

predominant along the continuum (Carron, 1982).

Carron (1980, p. 234) asserted that the level of cohesiveness could be low, but there cannot

be "zero" cohesiveness because groups would cease to exist. Carron (1980, p. 233) defined a

group as characterized by purposive interaction in goal directed and interpersonal behavior. The

"culture" that evolves in a group has the potential to influence the attitudes, and the behavior,

whereas the obj ectives of the group will dictate the kinds of activities in which members engage.

Alavi and McCormick (2004) argued that cohesive groups generally encourage a positive

atmosphere, free from personal squabbles, and as a result, members can benefit from the group,

whereas cooperation and overall performance is improved. Conversely, Friedkin (2004)

indicated that groups are cohesive when group-level conditions produce positive membership

attitudes and behaviors and when group members' interpersonal interactions operate to maintain

group-level conditions.

Although Festinger and associates had championed the conceptualization of group

cohesiveness based on interpersonal attraction in 1950, calls to revisit this view were made.

Another divisive concept in the study of group cohesiveness is the association between

cohesiveness and performance in task-oriented groups. Findings on this phenomenon have been

inconclusive (Carron, 1980, p. 245). Carron et al. (2004) asserted that the association between

cohesion and performance is largely based on assumptions. However, Carron and colleagues

indicated that this assumption inspires the ever-increasing attempt to reveal empirical evidence,

particularly in psychological disciplines. On the other hand, there seems to have been a general









consensus on the proposition that stipulated that the effect of cohesion on performance is

plausible, but the opposite may not be true (Bakeman and Helmreich, 1975).

The degree of interaction required; however, by the group for successful performance has

been noted previously as imperative to the cohesive-performance effect (Mullen and Copper,

1994). To a varying degree, meta-analysis revealed a positive relationship between cohesiveness

and performance (Evans and Dion, 1991; Mullen and Copper, 1994). However, Dyaram and

Kamalanabhan (2005) claimed that such meta-analyses were confronted with conceptual and

methodological problems. As a result, the confusion concerning the relationship between

cohesiveness and performance seems to have persisted.

Mullen and Copper (1994) presented that a stronger cohesiveness-performance effect in

groups required a greater degree of interaction, and consequently, coordination among group

members would be improved and the smooth operation of the group as a system would be

enhanced. Mullen and Copper observed task cohesion as the better predictor of task

performance. Group size was also found to influence the level of performance as well as

cohesiveness of groups (Mullen and Copper, 1994). As a result, it was hypothesized that

cohesiveness-performance relationship is stronger in smaller groups and weaker in larger groups.

Bettenhausen (1991) also noted that group size is a context variable that was consistently shown

to affect group processes and outcomes. On the contrary, group size was found to be inversely

related to perceptions of cohesion in exercise classes (Carron and Spink, 1995). Nevertheless,

Bettenhausen observed that group cohesion is a critical predictor of group behavior and is

reflected through evidence that revealed that cohesiveness resulted in improved performance,

increased satisfaction, and lower turnover. Evidently, cohesiveness can be antecedent in relation

to task performance.









Hackman (1990, pp. 6-7) identified three dimensions that contributed to the effectiveness

of groups, particularly in organizational groups. These include the degree to which group's

productive output meets the standards of quantity, quality, and timeliness; the degree to which

the process of carrying out work enhances the capability of members to work together

interdependently in the future, and the degree to which the group's experience contributes to the

development of others. In agriculture, productivity is largely determined by factors that are

beyond the control of farmers and these include both climatic and biological conditions

(Quiggin, 1995), whereas access to markets is an important factor. The ability of farmers to

produce in a timely manner and meet the quality and quantity of the output required for the

market is yet another important factor.

The functional perspective of group cohesiveness is centered on the performance of related

tasks. Both theoretical and methodological considerations are presented in the following section.

Issues of Interpretation on the Study of Cohesiveness

Contradictions in the study of cohesiveness-performance relationship are theoretical in

nature, and other concerns stem from measurement. Chang and Bordia (2001) asserted that

attempts to study the cohesion-performance alliance could not establish a systematic relationship.

In contrast, recent studies based on meta-analyses (Evans and Dion, 1991; Dion, 2000; Mullen

and Copper, 1994) supported a hypothesis that a relationship exists between cohesiveness and

performance. These studies also revealed that the interface between cohesiveness and

performance was due to the commitment to the task cohesion rather than to interpersonal

attraction. A caveat with the meta-analyses is that they should be interpreted with great care

because neither of the studies went beyond central tendency to establish the relationship between

cohesiveness and performance (Chang and Bordia, 2001). Therefore, although meta-analyses

have been instrumental, more attention should be devoted toward standardization of procedures.









Small group research has been criticized for over reliance on the positivist epistemology

(McGrath et al., 2000), whereas cohesiveness has been studied largely through experimental

designs and correlational studies. It has been observed that experimental studies tend to yield

weaker cohesiveness-performance effect, whereas correlational studies conducted under natural

settings yield better results (Mullen and Copper, 1994). Mullen and Copper assert that weak

results from experiments may be attributed to the removal of the impact of performance on

cohesiveness in the cohesiveness-performance effect. Mullen and Copper further claimed that the

correlational stance attempts to determine the direction of the influence, whereas the conditions

under which experiments are conducted make this approach artificial by controlling for

cohesiveness and gauging changes in subsequent performance.

Reasons for the lack of consistency in the study of the association between cohesiveness

and performance can be attributed to the pervasive nature of groups. Hackman (1990, p. 3)

suggested that the omnipresence of groups is actually problematic in the study of groups. Most

recently, Chang and Bordia (2001) concurred by indicating that the cohesiveness-performance

phenomenon is generally studied in contexts that are highly variable. Landers and Luschen

(1974) identified the degree of interaction required by the demands of the task. Thus, the lack of

consensus in the task-performance association could be attributed to the "task" dimension of

cohesiveness. This dimension appears to be obfuscated by the failure to differentiate between co-

acting and interacting groups. Interaction refers to the interdependence of group members, i.e.,

combining skills of individual members through an interdependent action. On the other hand, co-

acting refers to a summation of individual contributions; therefore low interdependence may not

be satisfied (Landers and Luschen, 1974).









Other views pointed out that the lack of coherence in the study of cohesiveness may be

traced back to its roots group dynamics (Poole, Hollingshead, McGrath, Moreland, and

Rohrbaugh, 2004). Poole et al. asserted that students of group dynamics have grappled to fill the

gap for a long time. Poole and colleagues further indicated that the disconnect between students

of groups across disciplines is an area that needs to be addressed. The proliferation of definitions

of cohesiveness causes concern in relation to measurement (Chang and Bordia, 2001; Friedkin,

2004). Bettenhausen (1991) also noted that students of cohesiveness are faced with the difficulty

of defining, operationalizing, measuring, and experimentally manipulating cohesiveness. Most

importantly, from a functional perspective, groups are manifested in various contexts and are

influenced by different factors. Therefore, operational definitions of variables within specific

contexts should become an important part of the study. Despite the disenchantment expressed by

many students of cohesiveness, many have tended to agree on the multidimensionality of

cohesion. Therefore, this consensus has given a point of departure toward a common definition

and measurement (Chang and Bordia, 2001). On the contrary, Friedkin (2004) claimed that the

multidimensional approach to cohesiveness did not address the problem of integrating the

individual and group level at which cohesiveness has been defined. Furthermore, Friedkin

asserted that the confusion has been indicative of the complexity involved in reciprocally linked

individual-level and group-level phenomenon.

Another area of contention in the study of cohesion-performance has been the precedence

set by Festinger et al. (1950). Festinger and colleagues aggregated individual data in order to

derive a group measure. Carron (1982) noted that the use of the average (mean) may not be

reliable, whereas the mode and the median may be better measures of central tendency under

specific circumstances. Carron further highlighted that the mean lacks resilience, and may be









misleading because two groups could have the same mean, yet groups may be different. Recent

studies (Burke et al., 2005; Dion, 2000) proposed other mechanisms that can ease the tension in

this regard. Data aggregation is considered acceptable when there is variation 0I ithrin groups as

well as between groups (analysis of variance-ANOVA). The current study compares the mean

(T-test) to determine the difference between cases of low and high degree of cohesiveness,

therefore, variability is maintained. The standard deviation is also used in this study as a measure

of variability.

Studying the cohesiveness-performance relationship has also been restrained by the

inability to employ longitudinal study designs (Carron, 1982). Carron asserts it was difficult to

identify with confidence the level of relationship to be referred to as "strong" because no

research design can take that into account because of the difficulty in representing initial

experiences of groups. The current study describes initial experiences of farm groups through

group discussions and by identifying emerging themes. Data reduction procedures have also

been deemed undesirable because the practice discards cases that display low levels of

cohesiveness (Carron et al., 2003). Carron and colleagues disputed this practice and argue that it

tends to increase the likelihood of committing Type II error.

The preceding sections discussed the theoretical basis of group cohesiveness.

Contributions made to the study of this construct over the time and the discrepancies were

identified. The following discusses the concept of common property resources.

Common Property Resources within a Broad Spectrum

Extensive research has been conducted in the area of common property resources (CPR' s)

and collective action (CA). Agrawal (2001) acknowledged that students from various disciplines

of scholarship contribute to the burgeoning literature, and the fields of study include but are not

limited to anthropology, economics, environment, political science, and rural sociology, among









others. Therefore, theoretical simulations on the phenomenon cut across many fields of inquiry.

The diversity of scholarship in this area is also reflective of the wide range of CPR' s. However,

Poteete and Ostrom (2003, p. 14) observed that students in the area tend to extrapolate and

attempt to generalize findings.

Historically, CPR's have been categorized into two subdivisions, those that are naturally

evolving as well as those that are man-made (Tuomel, 2003; Jodha, 1986). Generally, natural

CPR' s are differentiated based on their characteristic of subtractability and where exclusion may

be difficult to enforce (Myatt and Wallace, 2003, 2004). Subtractability is based on resources

becoming depleted from usage by a great number of individuals without effective property right

regimes. Therefore, natural CPR's tend to operate on the notion of "open access" and exclusive

property rights do not exist (Hardin, 1968). Co-users of natural resources could derive some

benefits from the use of such resources. And benefits that accrue to co-users might be in the form

of either income or any other personal gain. Based on this quality of CPR' s, natural resources

can be referred to as common pool resources.

In reference to man-made CPR' s, Quiggin (1995) proposed that CPR' s such as agricultural

cooperatives may be seen as a means to capture economies of scale. A salient characteristic of

man-made CPR' s has been the prominence of property ownership, thereby having made them

inaccessible to certain segments of the population. Efficiency based on agricultural production is

an important element in CPR' s. Further, benefits accrued to individual members according to

portions of individual contributions. Byrnes (1997, p. 211) noted that farmers' organizations

often have help create demand for and the supply of agricultural support institutions that

effectively improved technology utilization in small farmer agricultural production.










Byrnes asserted that research on farmers' organizations has not resulted in an organized

body of knowledge (p. 21 1). And the emphasis on the access of production inputs may be

misleading. Quiggin is among the few scholars who recognized that agricultural production is

highly dependent upon other factors. Quiggin further observed that elements of production (land,

labor and capital) determine, in large part, the probability of whether an output can be derived.

Volatile market prices as well as climatic conditions introduce a great deal of uncertainty in

agricultural production. These factors form part of the system that is beyond the control of the

farmers. Thus, these factors add yet another dimension to the formal theory of CA.

Given limited literature on collective action organized around agricultural production,

there has been a need to derive empirical evidence. Efforts to reinforce collective action in

CPR's organized around agricultural production were short-lived (Ostrom and Gardner, 1993;

Griffin et al., 2002). According to Quiggin (1995), systems that were based on common

ownership of property were not widespread, whereas other forms of common property resources

included land tenure reforms as well as irrigation schemes. Irrigation schemes in particular did

not achieve positive impact due to tendencies to discourage subsistence agricultural production

among agrarian communities (Ostrom and Gardner, 1993).

It must be noted that external forces tended to dictate the extent to which co-users and co-

owners can exploit CPR's. Particularly for naturally evolving resources, the monolithic role of

the state in managing such resources was devolved to local users (Agrawal, 2005, p. 29; Meizen-

Dick, Raju and Gulati, 2000). Consequently, local CPR's were governed through rules that were

derived locally (McCay and Jentoft, 1998). However, Meizen-Dick et al. (2000) cautioned that

care should be exercised to not assume that users of resources are keen in providing management

responsibilities.









In this section, the context within which common property resources are manifested has

been highlighted. However, extensive research is concentrated on common property resources

that are naturally evolving. Hence, literature in the ensuing section focuses on collective action in

relation to naturally evolving resources.

The Concept of Collective Action

Collective action is based on the notion of group formation. One of the most important

characteristics of group formation is that individuals will become involved in groups for various

reasons (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003, p. 14). Either voluntarily or involuntarily, people subscribe

their membership to various organizations. In the case of CA under the current study, it is

apparent that farms are made possible through pro-land redistribution policies.

However, CA based on conscious decision-making may involve developing institutions,

mobilizing resources, coordination of activities, as well as sharing of information (Poteete and

Ostrom, 2003, p. 14). Therefore, the diverse nature of CA determines benefits that accrue,

whereas group size also determines the proportion allocated to individual members.

Sugden (1984) claimed that any collection of individuals can count as a group. Oliver

(1993) disputed this claim by declaring that this "statement is indistinct and empty." Oliver

indicated that there is a natural tendency for people with shared interests to act together in pursuit

of interests. According to Etzion (1996), people tend to engage in collective action either based

on self-interests or social norms. Self-interests may be based on the notion of "public good"

derived from the resource, and multiple users may be able to use the resource simultaneously

(Sugden, 1984). Myatt and Wallace (2003) asserted that it is tempting to think that subscription

to a particular group implies participation in collective activities, which would in turn determine

the degree to which output can be derived. However, Sugden (1984) argued that it cannot be

assumed that collective benefits will evolve automatically, even though group members may









have all the necessary tools to help them achieve likely benefits. Veraghese and Ostrom (2001)

concurred and argued that neither group membership nor group size will ensure the success of a

given proj ect or task as is claimed by some authors.

McCarthy et al. (1998) and Quiggin (1995) demonstrated the characteristics of CA

organized around resources that combined both private and common ownership of property.

According to Quiggin, some examples have included irrigation systems, watering private

cropland, jointly owned agricultural machinery harvesting private crops or privately owned cattle

grazing on common land.

Nonetheless, it is generally acknowledged that defining CA on the basis of actions

producing a collective good (Olson, 1965) was seminal. Hardin (1968) elaborated on Olson's

theory by indicating that a collective good is a "benefit which cannot be withheld from other

members." Another follow up by Myatt and Wallace (2003, 2004) indicated that a collective

good is "non-excludable if all individuals are free to consume it, once it has been provided."

Although Olson's work is commendable, Olson has been criticized for appearing

contradictory by claiming that contributions made by individuals may not be noticeable in a

larger group. On the one hand, Hardin (1968) is disputed for confusing the tragedies of "open

access" with that of the "commons" (Oliver, 1993; McCay and Jentoft, 1998; Theesfeld, 2004).

Theesfeld (2004) claimed that Hardin' s expression of the "tragedy of the commons" denoted the

degradation of resources that are subtractable.

Other scholars of CA found Hardin's criticisms undesirable and considered such criticisms

problematic (McCay and Jentoft, 1998). McCay and Jentoft asserted that although Hardin's

model may be deficient, it provided useful insights and it was a useful analytic tool. McCay and

Jentoft further indicated that rigorous, empirically-based comparative analysis could help counter









the criticism. In addition, detractors should take into account that one of the important

characteristics of theory is "falsifiability/." Therefore, theories evolve.

It is generally acknowledged; however, that considerable progress has been made in the

study of CA. Even so, the study of CA was confronted with methodological challenges. Thus,

calls were made to rethink the theoretical foundations for the analysis of common property

resources (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001). It has been observed that progress made in the study of

CA seemed to be diverging and even competing at times (Chwe, 1999). Chwe submitted that an

emphasis has been on the influence of social structure, whereas the other studies tended to focus

on the incentives for individual participation. Oliver (1993) suggested that most researchers have

generally studied social and organizational processes that make action possible, whereas little

has been done on causation. Quiggin (1995) concurred and asserted that much of the theoretical

as well as empirical evidence on collective action was based on "game theoretic simulations."

Therefore, it was apparent that current speculative abstractions tend to restrict the

generalizability of the concept (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001; Poteete and Ostrom, 2003).

McCay and Jentoft (1998) claimed that inquiry in the study of CA has ignored a wide

variety of properties that may be encompassed by the term. On other hand, Poteete and Ostrom

(2003) asserted that attempts to synthesize findings from multiple studies have been faced with

challenges of evaluating analytical similarities and differences among different types of

collective action. Therefore, the varied context within which CA was manifested poses a

challenge.

Stocker (2004) asserted that Ostrom is probably the only scholar who championed CA.

However, Stocker critiqued Ostrom for overemphasis on individual behavior as shaped by the

rules in use. Stocker argued that the use of rational choice theory by Ostrom is deemed









undesirable. Stocker advocates for the cultural institutional theory that embodies a more

socialized understanding of human behavior. Further, Agrawal (2001) called for a broader view

of common pool resources than just mere design principles. Agrawal argued in favor of factors

that condition the environment. It was observed that an environment can either facilitate or

constrain an organization, therefore creating incentives or disincentives for people to work

together (Theesfeld, 2004; Randhir and Lee, 1995).

This section has illustrated trends in the study of CA. The theoretical origin of the

phenomenon has been highlighted, and inconsistencies in the formal theory were apparent. The

following section highlights factors that affect collective action.

Factors Affecting Collective Action

Previous research on CA and CPR's has largely focused on factors determining emergence

of collective action and its resilience (Knox and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). Knox and Meinzen-Dick

identified factors that are believed to shape CA in large part and notably, these included but were

not limited to, the importance of CPR' s to local livelihood systems, group heterogeneity, the

ability to organize and the capacity to manage resources, the investment needed to make

resources productive, as well as the support of external stakeholders in facilitating collective

action. Other scholars have also identified conditions that evoke and sustain collective action.

Dayton-Johnson (2000) indicated that the characteristics as well as the performance of the

group can influence collective action. Social heterogeneity could lower a cooperative effort, and

this could be in the form of economic inequality, social inequality, ethnic or religious

differences, among others (Myatt and Wallace, 2004). Myatt and Wallace asserted that "when

users are asymmetrical, their identities matter." Similarly, CA could be weakened in

circumstances where members are expected to contribute in one direction or the other

(Aggarwal, 2000; Baland and Platteau, 1999), whereas problems pertaining to opportunistic









behavior may be prevalent (Baland and Platteau, 1997). Baland and Platteau (1999) disputed

Olson's (1965) assertion by illustrating that inequality did not favor the creation of public goods.

On the contrary, Campbell, Mandondo, Nemarundwe and Sithole (2001) observed that

differences in social class and ethnicity can make consensus building and norm enforcement

difficult. Such difficulties came from the assumed problems of distrust and the lack of mutual

understanding (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001).

There has been no apparent consensus on the question of heterogeneity in CA. Baland and

Platteau (1999) claimed that role of inequality among users is debatable, and also the relationship

between the distribution of wealth and outside opportunities has been ambiguous. Despite the

lack of consistency on the study of social inequality, it has been argued that the conditions under

which certain types of heterogeneity undermine or enhance collective action have remained

largely unknown (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001). Furthermore, clarity is lacking as to whether

the attributes of a given group of users affect the likelihood of collective action, or whether,

given those attributes, users devise institutional mechanisms to reduce costs and enhance

cooperation.

Bardhan (2000) suggested that theoretically, the relationship between heterogeneity and

successful collective action has been a complex one. Bardhan indicated that there has been

tendency among students of CA to confuse inequality with group size. Therefore, inequality has

been largely obfuscated in many field studies and findings have been misleading.

Nonetheless, Olson (1965) argued that membership in a large group reduces benefits to

individuals members, whereas the likelihood to free-ride on the cooperative efforts of others

increases. Furthermore, group size may have also been instrumental at the 'input' stage (Myatt

and Wallace, 2004). Other scholars observed that groups are more likely to succeed when there










is positive correlation between the cost of contribution and the benefit acquired (Myatt and

Wallace, 2004; Dayton-Johnson, 2000; Olson, 1965).

However, what remained concealed in this debate was identifying the point where the

relationship between group size and benefits can be detected along the continuum of CA. In

order to gain insights on the procession of CA, longitudinal study designs are warranted. Other

questions that remained outstanding in relation to group size are concerned with the role of social

networking, moral values, norms of trust and reciprocity, and relative proclivity toward altruism

versus self-interest, to mention a few (Knox and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). Nonetheless, Knox and

Meinzen-Dick hypothesized that previous experiences in collective action from other settings

such as credit and savings groups are likely to contribute toward CA.

The conventional concept of CA has been criticized for its failure to adequately explain

conditions in settings where collective actors create and sustain agreements to avoid serious

problems of over-appropriation (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001). Another limitation of the concept

has been the failure to predict the conditions under which ownership will improve outcomes.

Conducting a study in redistributed farms was yet an attempt to illuminate such concerns. In

addition, recent theoretical advancements have begun to elucidate some of the conditions that are

conducive to local self-organization (Ostrom, 2000).

Of particular importance, CA has not been a unitary phenomenon (Campbell et al., 2001).

In addition, the events that are subsumed under the term "collective action" are complex and

diverse to allow simple generalizations about its causes, effects, or dynamics (Bardhan, 2000).

Campbell et al. further asserted that given lack of congruence between the literature and the

realities on the ground, much of the literature has had limited applicability to on-going research

and development on community-based or common property systems. Lack of consistency has









made the design of new empirical studies to advance the body of knowledge quite difficult

(Poteete and Ostrom, 2003). Therefore, standardization and developing valid and reliable

research instruments in the study of CA should be the main focus for future studies.

This section presented ongoing debates on the factors that affect collective action. It is the

general consensus that advancements on the phenomenon have been inconclusive. The following

section highlights land reform experiences of the past.

Land Reform Experiences

Land reform has generally been implemented in order to level out inequalities with regard

to land ownership patterns. Thus, the program has been socio-political in nature (Binswanger and

Deininger, 1993; Griffin, et al., 2002), with the same theme applied to the current land reform of

South Africa. Other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that have implemented land reform

programs in the past include Kenya, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia (Griffin, et

al., 2002). According to Griffin and colleagues, a commonality between these countries except

Ethiopia was that colonial governments had displaced African tenure systems that were based on

communal rights.

Although the dawn of land reform was witnessed following WWII (Binswanger and

Deininger, 1993), after years of economic conservatism, renewed interest in the development

agenda stirred (Borass, 2006; Griffin et al., 2002). Griffin and colleagues noted that despite the

types of land tenure reform such as private titling or collective action, implemented in Sub-

Saharan Africa, successes have been limited. Western forms of land titling were deemed

undesirable because land sales could not be performed under communal systems.

However, positive experiences were reported from Iran, East Punj ab, Eastern India, China,

Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Bolivia, and Ethiopia where land was transferred to tenants, unlike

experiences from Latin America, Algeria, Eastern and Southern Africa that did not achieve









efficiency (Biswanger and Deininger, 1993). Biswanger and Deininger noted that there were

examples from countries such as East Germany, Peru, Chile, Mozambique, Algeria, where farms

were converted from commercial into state farms. Furthermore, farms acquired collectively

tended to degenerate over time and the capital stock deteriorated.

According to Griffin et al. (2002) one of the purposes of land reform is to dismantle the

system of labor controls and reduce monopolistic power of large landowners. This hypothesis

was based on the premise that redistribution of land will lead to a more equitable distribution of

productive wealth. However, previous experiences illustrated that the policy approach toward

land reform was neither static nor rigid. Biswanger and Deininger (1993) became the proponents

for a shift from state-led land reform to a redistributive land reform, which is based on market

standards. However, Borass (2003) asserted that this recommendation was heavily contested by

various stakeholders within policy formulation circles.

The market-oriented approach to land redistribution has been a recent policy

recommendation proposed by the World Bank, and has been implemented in Brazil, Colombia

and South Africa. Borass (2006) reported that land redistribution in the Philippines was marked

by discrepancies that discredited it from being considered a redistributive land reform program.

Nonetheless, analysis of empirical evidence pointed out that land redistribution has been

associated with some shortcomings (Borass, 2003). Borass noted that the pro-market stance

toward land redistribution is demand-driven as opposed to the state-led stance, which is solely

supply-driven. Examples on state-led land reform programs have been cited from countries such

as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (Griffin et al., 2002). Although the Latin American

experiences were somewhat improved and modeled after Asian programs (McCarthy, de Janvry,

Sadoulet, 1998), land was expropriated in Mexico, Bolivia and Cuba (Griffin et al., 2002).









Griffin and colleagues asserted that experiences from Latin America suggest that land reform is

likely to succeed when it is enshrined in the rural development strategy. Although strides have

been taken toward providing financial support through comprehensive agricultural programs

(CASP), the lack of support services in redistributed farms of South Africa has previously been

echoed (Aliber, 2003; Borass, 2003; Deininger and May, 2000; Deininger, 1999).

This section has given an overview of former types of land reform as well as the emerging

redistributive reform. Varied experiences can be attributed to differences in policy approaches

adapted in respective countries. Collective forms of land reform can be located within the

conceptual framework of collective action as well as the theoretical framework of group

cohesiveness.

Summary

This chapter highlighted the literature and the theoretical frameworks within which

redistributed farms are embedded. A common denominator between collective action (CA) and

group cohesiveness has been that they are both grounded within group dynamics and the

formation of groups. Thus, groups are central to the study of CA and group cohesiveness. What

is striking in the study of these phenomena are the complications of designing empirical studies

that can yield consistent results. The review demonstrated that the challenges in studying these

areas can be traced back to their origins i.e., group dynamics. The fact that groups are pervasive

in various spheres of society makes standardization more of a challenge. Students of collective

action as well as group cohesiveness have grappled with conceptual as well as methodological

challenges. Group cohesiveness has made remarkable empirical advancements toward theory

building. In contrast, more work is needed to develop collective action into a reliable (Ostrom,

1991, p.7) and valid concept. Extensive studies in CA are generally descriptive in nature, unlike









the study of group cohesiveness, which is generally rigorous by using both experimental and

correlational designs.

Collective action can be categorized as descriptive in nature, whereas group cohesiveness

is generally explanatory. Therefore, as alluded to prior, group cohesiveness has more potential to

contribute toward theory building than does collective action.









Table 2-1 Types of groups formed deliberately (Adapted from Cartwright and Zander, 1968)
Type of group Definition
Work groups Perform tasks efficiently through the pooling and coordination of the behavioral
and resources of a collection of individuals.
Problem-solving groups Designed on the basis that a solution will be attained more efficiently when a
collection of people work on the problem than when work is performed
independently


Social-action groups
Mediating groups

Legislative groups
Client groups


Formed out of a desire to exert influence in society
Created to coordinate activities of other groups, distribute resources among them,
and reconcile conflict of interest.
Created to develop rules, regulations, laws, or policies that govern behavior
The performance of services is more effective or efficient if the clients are treated
as groups rather than as individuals.
































Figure 2-1 Conceptual model of group cohesiveness (Carron et al., 1985, reproduced with permission)









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND IVETHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to explore the degree of perceived group cohesiveness in

redistributed farms as well as the factors influencing group cohesiveness. A Likert-type scale

was used to measure perceived group cohesiveness. Factors influencing perceived group

cohesiveness were measured by using indices, and questionnaires were developed and utilized to

obtain factual data. This chapter outlines the research design that guided the measurement

procedures employed.

Research Design

A cross-sectional research design was employed in this study. Cross-sectional research

design permits data collection at a single point in time (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 2002, p. 379;

Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 112). Rubin and Babbie asserted that cross-sectional design is

correlational in nature, whereas Ary et al. referred to this design as causal comparative because

it attempts to establish cause-and-effect relationships between independent variables and

dependent variables.

The causal comparative design does not permit either randomization or manipulation of

the independent variables. Another limitation associated with this design has to do with the

difficulty in the establishment of causation. Ary and associates warned against mistakenly

attributing causation between two variables, referred to as post hoc fallacy (p. 337). Spurious

relationships were also a concern in this design. Agresti and Finlay (1997, p. 365) defined

spurious associations as those that disappear between variables when a third variable is

controlled for.

Ary et al. (2002, p. 337) and Agresti and Finlay outlined three conditions that must be met

in order to satisfy causality, and the conditions ensue hereunder (p. 357):










* A statistical relationship between independent variables and dependent variables should be
established.

* Independent variables should precede the dependent variables in time.

* Alternate explanations should be eliminated.

Bivariate correlations were used to determine relationships between variables, though bivariate

correlations are simple and tend to have limited validity (Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 306). Rubin

and Babbie asserted that cross-sectional design can control for alternative variables through

multivariate statistical procedures. Regression analysis was used in this study to detect

covariation between variables.

A caveat regarding redistributed farms is that there may be an array of other factors

influencing the outcome variable, and this study measured a limited number of factors as

explanatory variables. This posed a threat to internal validity of the Eindings. Suffice it to say that

the explanatory variables explored in the current study may only be a part of the factors that

influence group cohesiveness on the farms. Group cohesiveness was treated as the dependent

(outcome) variable and this was a self-reported measure.

Structural characteristics of farms were described at the farm level (n=13). Nominal data

were gathered in order to determine historical events that led to the evolution of current farm

groups. The profie of current farm groups was also assessed by collecting nominal level data

including demographics, duration of membership as well as positions held within groups by

individual group members (n=137). Factors influencing perceived group cohesiveness were

measured in the form of the degree of satisfaction with benefits acquired from farms, and the

degree of group governance and these were treated as the independent variables of interest.

Addressing validity and reliability formed an important part of the study.









Establishing causation in previous studies of perceived group cohesiveness has been a

daunting challenge. Given the cyclical nature of group cohesiveness, it has been difficult to

determine whether group cohesiveness was antecedent or a consequence. Thus perceived group

cohesiveness has an ambiguous nature. According to Carron (1982), antecedent variables can

largely affect whether group cohesiveness can be manifested. Nevertheless, group cohesiveness

was considered as an outcome variable in this study.

Addressing Validity and Reliability

Zeller and Carmines (1980) asserted that the concepts of validity and reliability are key to

the notion of measurement in social sciences. This process entails identifying theoretically

meaningful measures. Zeller and Carmines indicated that this process seeks to bridge the gap

between theoretically deduced measures and empirical evidence.

Validity is deemed the most important consideration in developing and evaluating

measuring instruments (Ary et al., 2002, p. 242). Generally, validity is defined as the "extent to

which an instrument measures what it intends to measure." Validity of measuring instruments

includes content, face, construct, and criterion (Rubin and Babbie, 1997, pp. 177-179). Construct

and content validity were a threat to this study. Construct validity is concerned with

interrelationships among multiple measures, whereas content validity relates to the range of

meanings within a concept. Both construct and content validity were addressed by adapting a

standardized instrument for measuring group cohesiveness. Also, other instruments used in the

study were carefully constructed. Procedures followed in the development of instruments are

discussed in later sections.

Internal and external validity of the study were addressed in relation to the measurement

procedure. Internal validity addresses if measures contribute consistently to the theoretical

measures of concepts or if they gauge something else (Merriam, 1995; Zeller and Carmines,










1980). External validity is concerned with the question if measures will behave in the same way

with similar theoretical concepts in terms of direction and strength as well as consistency of

relationships. Given the research design employed in this study, internal validity was threatened

because of the difficulty in establishing causation. However, the design can potentially "tease

out" convincing evidence for causation (Ary et al., 2002, p. 336) if it is configured to control for

other variables.

Other forms of intemal validity that were a threat to the study included history, coverage,

and mortality. The history aspect was concerned with events that occurred during the course of

the study and that had the potential to confound results (Ary, et al., 2002, p. 282; Cook and

Campbell, 1979, p. 50). Some of the study farms had government financial assistance at the time

the study was conducted. Other events also included distributing income among group

participants on the farms, and the income being accumulated over a long period of time. The

study experienced mortality because some group participants had discontinued their participation

from the farms during the course of the study. Consequently, two of the study farms had only

two participants remaining.

External validity is divided into ecological and population validity. Ecological validity is

concerned with whether findings can be observed under different settings of the domain, whereas

population validity refers to whether findings can be attained with other subj ects of the

population (Ary, et al., 2002, p. 298). In this study, external validity was limited because the

study was based on population. However, the study employed measures that were theoretically

sound. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the study has been exploratory in nature and has the

potential to contribute to the expansion of research in similar settings of land redistribution.









Findings from this study cannot be generalized to other farms, but research in the area can be

extended to other farms in the province and beyond.

In terms of reliability, Ary et al. (p. 250) asserted that the concept can be distinguished

from validity based on measurement error (i.e., random and systematic error). According to Ary

and colleagues, random error pertains to error that occurs by chance, and this error could either

overestimate or underestimate individual scores and may be difficult to detect. Reliability of a

study is concerned with the effect of random errors on the consistency of the scores obtained.

Reliability is determined by how consistently the instrument measures the phenomenon under

study. Pre-testing was performed in order to address aspects of both reliability and validity.

Details on pre-testing are discussed later in the chapter.

Reliability appears in the form of intemal consistency as well as external consistency.

Internal consistency refers to the extent to which measures are consistent; whereas external

consistency is confirmed when similar results will be observed when a study is replicated (Zeller

and Carmines, 1980). Ary et al. (2002) asserted that reliability is not concerned with the meaning

and interpretation of the scores because that is a validity question (p. 267).

Generally, it is acknowledged that reliability is essential but not a sufficient condition for

validity to occur due to reasons that pertain to systematic or non-random error (Ary et al., 2002,

p. 251; Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 184; Zeller and Carmines, 1980). These authors declared that

valid factors are those that contain true score variance. According to Downing (2003), research

instruments can be validated either by confirming or denying the hypotheses predicted from a

theory based on constructs.

Random error poses a greater threat and tends to reduce the validity of a study (Ary et al.,

2002, p. 267; Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 168; Zeller and Carmines, 1980). It is a general









consensus that random error is hard to estimate, detect or eliminate by statistical tools only, but it

requires theoretical insights that would boost the predictive power in the research design.

Statistical analysis should try to reject a false null hypothesis (Type II error). Rossi, Lipsey, and

Freeman (2004) asserted that Type II error is more difficult to control because it requires

configuring the research design so that it has adequate statistical power. Rossi and colleagues

defined statistical power as "the probability that an estimate of the independent variable will be

statistically significant when it represents a real effect" (p. 309).

Social desirability and acquiescence are sources of systematic error and these were a threat

to the study. Social desirability refers to the tendency by study subj ects to provide responses that

may be more acceptable rather than responses that participants would give under neutral

conditions (Matthew, Baker, and Spillers, 2003). Bryman (2004, p. 127) and DeVillis (2003)

asserted that study participants tend to agree or disagree consistently with a set of questions and

this pattern is referred to as acquiescence. Acquiescence is prevalent with scale response type

questions and social desirability is likely to occur with interview type questions (Matthew et al.,

2003).

Given the manner in which groups under study had evolved, social desirability was

expected to be a threat because it was assumed that group members had developed a "sense of

belonging" and wanted to be loyal to their groups. During data collection, social desirability was

apparent when responses were used to camouflage the dynamics within the groups, particularly

by members of leadership. However, informal conversations were used to corroborate responses.

Individual respondents brought forth additional information and this resulted in lengthy question-

and-answer sequences, but additional information created room for probing. However, this often

resulted in respondent fatigue and data collection schedules were marked for potential










respondent fatigue. The following section introduces the procedure that was followed when

selecting study participants.

Population and Sampling Procedure

A nation wide database on redistributed farms was obtained from the Human Sciences

Research Council in Pretoria. From this list, a total of 77 farms were identified as those that were

redistributed under the Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) across the six districts of

Limpopo Province. Of 77 farms in the province, 29 were allocated in Capricorn District and

these were considered as the sampling frame. Capricorn District is comprised of two

municipalities (Polokwane and Molemole). During sampling, an actual inventory of the farms

was conducted by physically visiting farms. Discussions were also held with extension officers

about the availability and accessibility of farms. After these exercises, only thirteen farms were

identified as operational, and the rest (16 farms) had collapsed and were shut down. As a result,

study farms (n=13) were treated as a population of surviving farms. Garson (2006) noted that

nonrandom sampling can be appropriate in exploratory studies or where it is the only alternative.

Five of the study farms were located in Polokwane, and eight study farms were located in

Molemole Municipality. See Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for the location of the study farms in the

provinces as well as their distribution across the two municipalities.

The number of participants in the study farms was dependent upon the size of the group at

the time of the study. From the 13 farms, data were collected from 137 respondents. Participation

in the study by respondents was voluntary as required by the Institutional Review Board. A

protocol was submitted to UFIRB for approval prior to pre-testing (UFIRB #2006-U-0436).

Revisions based on pre-testing were resubmitted electronically to UFIRB and data collection was

resumed upon approval. A copy of the approved protocol is attached in Appendix A.









Research Instruments

Data collection was conducted both at the farm level (n=13) and at the individual level

(n=137). A farm inventory tool was used as well as group interviews to collect data at the farm

level. The degree of perceived group cohesiveness and explanatory factors were measured at the

individual level. Therefore, measurement was performed at different levels (i.e., interval, ordinal,

and nominal). Data collection instruments utilized are discussed in detail below.

Group environment questionnaire (GEQ)

Carron et al. (1985) developed the group environment questionnaire (GEQ) as a measure

for perceived group cohesiveness, and this instrument was adapted in this study. The (GEQ) is a

9-point Likert-type scale consisting of 18 items (rating scale from 1= strongly disagree to 9=

strongly agree). Perceived group cohesiveness was measured as an outcome variable, and the

larger the score, the stronger the perception. Group cohesiveness is multidimensional, and the

dimensions are evaluated through various indices. Notably, the four dimensions of group

cohesiveness include group integration-task (GI-T); group integration-social (GI-S), individual

attractions to group-task (ATG-T), and individual attractions to group-social (ATG-S).

Individual indices are comprised by multiple items; thus, group cohesiveness is a complex

composite latent variable. Sommer and Sommer (2002) and DeVellis (2003) asserted that

multiple items are a good way to increase the reliability of scales. Cronbach's Alpha coefficients

for the four constructs are reported in Table 3.1 and these range from moderate to high (.64 to

.76).

Carron et al. (1985) proposed that the social aspect of group cohesiveness relates to the

general orientation toward developing and maintaining social relationships within a group,

whereas task aspects relate to achieving goals and obj ectives. Group cohesiveness is generally

viewed through forces that cause individual group members to remain and continue their










participation in a group. The operational definition of individual attractions to group-task (ATG-

T) is based on the perceived functionality of groups (farms) by individual members. Therefore,

farms were considered as entities that are "source and means" for achieving desirable outcomes

or benefits. Individual attraction to the group-social (ATG-S) is associated with interpersonal

interactions among members of groups. Characteristics of individual members such as age, sex,

level of education, to mention a few were treated as antecedent variables.

At the group level, group integration represents perceptions concerning the group in its

entirety and the factors influencing continued existence of the group. The degree to which

individual members of groups are involved in both task and social aspects determines their

continued participation in the groups.

Post hoc reliability analysis was performed and scale items were selected for further

analysis. Details on post hoc reliability analysis are presented later in this chapter. GEQ was

administered in the local language of Sepedi. Unlike the traditional approach of the self-

administered instrument, the GEQ was administered one-on-one. Minor changes in the GEQ

were made. For example, a term such as "team" was replaced by "group," and work place by

"farm". Instruments used in the study are attached in Appendix C.

Questionnaires and indices

Questionnaires were developed and used to obtain factual and straightforward data. Data

were gathered on the structural characteristics of the farms (n=13). Farms were characterized in

terms of the number of group members remaining, ongoing activities, and the degree to which

support services were provided. Other scale response format measures were developed to collect

data at the individual level and were used in conjunction with GEQ.

Nominal data were collected on the demographics of individual group members.

Explanatory factors included perceived degree of group governance and degree of satisfaction









with benefits. The degree of group governance was measured in terms of the flow of information

through decision making, problem solving, record keeping practices, as well as the adherence to

the rules used to allocate benefits to ensure equitable distribution. The degree to which individual

group members in farm groups were satisfied with benefits was measured in terms of the

importance of benefits, satisfaction with benefits, as well as the degree to which benefits

acquired improved the standard of living for group members.

Explanatory variables were measured using scale response type format questions rated

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), 1 (few) to 5 (too many), 1 (not important) to 5

(very important), 1 (not satisfied at all) to 5 (completely satisfied), 1 (much lower) to 5 (much

higher), 1 (not very useful) to 4 (very useful), 1 (never) to 5 (always). The higher the score, the

stronger the perception on the item. Individual items on the measures were also subj ected to post

hoc reliability analysis. Details on reliability analysis are presented later in the chapter.

Explanatory variables were formulated based on the literature and multiple items were

used to construct instruments. During instrument development, questions were evaluated through

a consultative process. Peer review sessions were conducted and questions were evaluated based

on interpretation and meaning. Questions were then selected based on discussions during peer

reviews. Reviews were also conducted with experts. Prior to pre-testing, peer reviewers and

experts involved were both graduate students and professors from the University of Florida.

Questions were eliminated based on their lack of importance, and some were added during

review sessions. Peer review sessions identified culturally sensitive questions and questions were

rephrased with appropriate wording. The question format was also evaluated in terms of post

data collection processes such as coding and data entry. Follow-up questions were formulated to

ensure internal consistency of measurements. Questions were retained based on clarity and









relevance to the concept under consideration. Leading questions were either eliminated or

rephrased. Other considerations were based on the wording order, spelling errors and

typographical errors.

During pre-testing, review sessions were continued and questions were evaluated based

either on the difficulty to ask or simplicity to answer. Addressing validity and reliability was

challenged at multiple stages of the study, and statistical analyses formed the latter part of the

process. Given the inverse relationship between reliability and precision, addressing reliability

was more important than addressing precision. However, the measures of perceived group

cohesiveness included both positive and negative items and, thus, addressed precision to a

certain extent. Negative scale items were reverse coded during data analysis.

Discussion guide for group interviews

Nominal data were collected through group interviews. Group interviews were used to

determine the experiences that led to the evolution of current farm groups. Detailed information

was collected on the processes by which current farm groups had evolved, particularly in terms

of production activities as well as governance. Interviews were important given that group

cohesiveness is cyclical and can vary depending on the phase in group development. Probing

was used as a follow up technique during discussions.

Selection of participants for group interviews was left to group members, and this method

allowed rapport within the research setting to emerge. The number of participants was largely

determined by the size of the groups in study farms. The ability to participate in group interviews

was also determined by ongoing tasks at the time the interviews were scheduled. However,

member checking was conducted, and informal conversations were used to corroborate data

collected from the group participants who were involved in group interviews. Other informal









discussions were held with extension officers and these were used as strategically to increase the

understanding of the farms.

Although the number of participants varied from one farm to another, a focus group

interview approach was used to conduct group interviews. The researcher moderated discussions

and proceedings were recorded with an audio tape with prior permission granted by the

participants. According the Berg (2004, p. 123), the role of a moderator is to elicit information

from the participants on the subj ect of interest. The moderator facilitates group discussions

(Wilkinson, 2004, p. 178). Transcriptions were performed and data were open coded for thematic

analysis.

Topics in the discussion guide were developed through a consultative process and these are

included in Appendix C. Revisions were made based on the contributions from peers as well as

from experts. The decision to conduct group interviews was made after pre-testing. Peer

reviewers and experts included graduate students and professors at the University of Limpopo,

South Africa. Topics in the discussion guide were further clarified for meaning and

interpretation.

Pre-testing research instruments

Pre-testing was performed for the purposes of addressing construct validity and two farms

were used for this exercise. Pre-testing is deemed an appropriate measure to reduce the

likelihood of systematic error. Rubin and Babbie (1997) proposed that systematic error is

explained by the disconnect between data collected and the theoretical concept under

consideration (p. 161). Sommer and Sommer (2002) asserted that pre-testing of research

instruments also helps in identifying difficult and ambiguous terms. Addressing reliability and

validity of the measurements aided in reducing the likelihood of errors.










During pre-testing, it was difficult to administer and score the 9-point Likert-type scale. As

a result, a decision was made to collapse the 9-point scale into 5-points. Shapcott, Carron, Burke,

Bradshaw and Estabrooks (2006) adapted measures of cohesiveness as a 5-point scale.

Furthermore, Emons, Sijitsma and Meij er (2007) observed small differences between

dichotomous and polytomous scale items. Given the prevalence of low levels of literacy among

respondents, a step ladder with 5 steps was used to illustrate the 5-point scale to the respondents.

Research assistants were recruited from the University of Limpopo and were trained prior

to pre-testing. Instruments were further reviewed and revised based on discussions during

training sessions. Research assistants were encouraged to practice question-and-answer style

during training sessions. The exercise was performed in the local vernacular of Sepedi. Review

sessions were also scheduled after pre-testing visits to the farms, and further revisions were made

based on the follow up discussions with research assistants. Research assistants were encouraged

to make journal entries during pre-testing and their notes were also discussed after pre-testing.

Collins (2003) indicated that a research process entails data collection through an

instrument by the enumerator. Therefore, results observed from a study either derives from the

instrument or are due to the effect of the enumerator. Given this consideration, fewer research

assistants were retained for further data collection.

Data Collection

This study was conducted between June 2006 and December 2006. Following pre-testing,

data collection was conducted in three phases. Initial visits to the farms were made to establish

contact and introduce the study as well as present the consent documents (a requirement by

UFIRB). Group participants were allowed some time to discuss granting permission for the study

to be conducted on their farms. Telephone calls as well as visits were conducted to inquire if

permission had been granted, and data collection was only commenced after permission was










granted. In the case where contact details were accessed, leaders of farms were initially contacted

by telephone and the purpose of the study was explained to them. The leaders at times shared the

information with other group members and in such cases permission was granted on the day of

the first visit. In such instances, leaders also gave consent for collecting farm inventory data on

the first visit.

In other instances, farm level data were collected during subsequent visits and mainly

leaders of farms generally participated during this stage (n=13). Group interviews were

conducted during the second phase. The third phase of the study entailed data collection at the

individual level (n=137). Likert-type scale and other scale response type format measures were

used. Interview techniques were blended during data collection at the individual level. Pointed

questions and probing were used to follow up on the latent meaning of specific responses.

Worster and Abrams (2005) found that pointed questions and probing were useful for revisiting

questions that were either not adequately answered or for following up on interesting points.

Therefore open-ended type responses were also obtained concurrently with data collected at the

individual level.

More background information on the farms was attained by reviewing documents such as

business plans, constitutions, and the deed of trusts. Informal discussions were also held with

extension officers from the Limpopo Department of Agriculture. Getting an outside perspective

through informal conversations was useful and provided a broader understanding of the

dynamics of the farms.

Unstructured observations were also conducted throughout the study. However,

performing observations was a challenge prior to establishing rapport with individuals on the

farms. Informal conversations were held with members of groups either during task performance









on the farms or outside of the farms. The content of the conversations was noted; however, such

statements were handled with caution and were mainly used to corroborate other responses, and

to render general information about the farms. Conducting group interviews prior to data

collection at the individual level was important because it gave the basis for evaluating

individual responses. A journal was kept by the researcher and informal conversations were

recorded. The journal was updated after each visit to the farms.

Social exchange theory was utilized for the purposes of establishing rapport with members

of farm groups. This theory is based on exchanges as tokens of appreciation between the parties

involved in a research study. Dillman (2000, p. 14) asserted there are many ways in which

perceived costs for participating in a research study could be reduced. Light refreshments were

sometimes offered to participants, and pictures taken during farms visits were printed and taken

to the farms during subsequent visits. Whenever possible, the researcher lent a helping hand

during task performance and this enhanced rapport prior to data collecting at the individual level.

Data Analysis

Various methods facilitated data collection. As a result, data were collected at various

levels of measurement interval, ordinal, and nominal. Statistical Package for Social Sciences@

software (SPSS) was utilized in analyzing data. Descriptive statistics were used to assess

measures of central tendency as well as the distribution of data. Missing data of less than 5%

were not imputed (Noruilis, 2003, p. 273).

Multiple measures on perceptions were summated and scores were computed for

individual respondents. Only items that were retained through reliability analysis were used to

compute summated scores. T-test for the equality of means and for the equality of variance was

performed. Regression analysis was used to determine causation between perceived group

cohesiveness and explanatory variables. The risk of committing a Type II error was minimized










by retaining cases with low cohesiveness. Carron et al. (2003) observed that discarding cases

with low levels of cohesiveness tends to weaken statistical power. Nominal data were transcribed

and open coding was used to identify emerging themes (Kossak, 2005).

Reliability of Measuring Instruments

Group cohesiveness is a multidimensional construct and was measured using a

multidimensional Likert-type scale (Carron et al., 1985). Schafer and Graham (2002) asserted

that many latent variables cannot be measured reliably by a single item. Scales are typically

created and multiple items are averaged (Clason and Dormody, 1994). Other scale response type

items were developed as measures of degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group

governance, and degree of satisfaction with support services (n =137). The degree to which

support services were provided was measured at the farm level (n =13).

Post hoc reliability analysis was performed to determine Alpha coeffcients for individual

indices on the Likert-type scale and other scale response type measures (Tables 3-2 to 3-8). Items

used in data analysis were selected through Alpha as well as inter-item correlation coeffcients.

Only the items that were retained are reported in the results. Further iterations were performed

until the highest Alpha coeffcient level was obtained and inter-item correlation coeffcients were

relatively consistent internally. As a result, items on the GEQ that were less consistent with other

items were deleted. This practice was also performed by Chang and Bordia (2001). For the

measures of group cohesiveness, deletion of items was performed at the level of the indices -

individual attractions to group-social (IATG-S), individual attractions to group-task (IATG-T),

group integration-task (GI-T), and group integration-social (GI-S).

Indices of group cohesiveness had low to moderate reliability coeffcients (.51 .65).

However, the overall Alpha coeffcient for group cohesiveness was .66. Scales with good

measures are expected to yield Alpha coeffcients above .80 (Noruilis, 2003, p. 43 8), but a









coeffcient of .60 is acceptable for exploratory studies (Garson, 2007). Emons et al. (2007)

cautioned that short measuring instruments (less 20 items) tend to have higher probability of

measurement error. Emons and colleagues recommended that short tests be combined with other

measures in order to increase reliability. Burke et al. (2005) observed Alpha coeffcients on the

GEQ ranging from .47 to .74. In this study, post hoc overall reliability analysis yielded an Alpha

coeffcient of .82. The overall Alpha coeffcient computed after pre-testing yielded an Alpha

coeffcient of .76. Final reliability coeffcients for respective indices are presented in Appendix



Individual measures on the degree of satisfaction with support services had very low

reliability coeffcients (see Appendix B). As a result, such items are reported as individual

measures. Missing data of less than 5% were treated as non responses (Noruilis, 2003, p. 273)

when computing reliability coeffcients.

Summary

This chapter presented the procedures that facilitated the collection of relevant data. A

cross-sectional design underpinned this study. Pre-testing of research instruments was performed

prior to data collection and revisions were made based on the outcomes of the exercise. The

population of the study as well as the sampling procedure were highlighted.

Data collection instruments and instrument development procedures were discussed.

Methods of data analysis were explained. Post hoc reliability analysis was presented and

selection of items was based on the Alpha coeffcients and inter-item total correlation.









Table 3-1 Cronbach's Alpha coefficients for individual indices on the group environment
questionnaire
Construct Alpha coefficient
Individual attractions to group-Task .75
Individual attractions to group-Social .64
Group integration-Task .70
Group integration-Social .76
Cronbach's Alpha levels adapted from Carron et al. (1985, used with permission). Alpha
coefficients were derived from a sample size of 247.

Table 3-2 Reliability analysis on the degree of provision of support services
Item n Alpha if item deleted
Frequency of farm visits 13 .26
Provision of information 13 .38
Provision of advice 13 .43
Access to finances 13 .67
Access to machinery 13 .54
Accessibility of service providers 13 .64
Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coefficients. Final Alpha coefficient for the index is .91. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing Alpha.

Table 3-3 Reliability analysis on the degree of satisfaction with benefits
Item n Alpha if item deleted
Importance of benefits 129 .52
Satisfaction with benefits 129 .52
Improved living standard for self 129 .48
Social classes represented 129 .70
Improved living standard for others 129 .58
Group importance 129 .54
Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coefficients. Final Alpha coefficient for the index is .70. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing Alpha.










Table 3-4 Reliability analysis on the degree of group governance
Item n Alpha if item
deleted
Involvement in decision-making 131 .83
Involvement in problem-solving 131 .82
Record keeping on expenditures 131 .81
Record keeping on sales 131 .81
Record keeping on all records 131 .81
Benefit allocation rules 131 .84
Equitable distribution of benefits 131 .85
Note. Reliability coeffcients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coeffcients. Final Alpha coefficient for the index is .84. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing Alpha.

Table 3-5 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual attractions to the group-social
Item n Alpha if item
deleted
I do not enj oy being part of the social activities of this group* 135 .49
I am not going to miss the members of this group when I leave* 135 .25
Some of my best friends are in this group 135 .45
I enj oy other activities more than group activities 135 .51
For me, this group is one of the most important social group to 135 .37
which I belong
Note. Reliability coeffcients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coeffcients. Final Alpha coefficient for the index is .57. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing Alpha.
*Items were reverse coded.

Table 3-6 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual attractions to the group-task
Item n Alpha if item
deleted
I am not happy with the amount of time I spend working in this 135 .40
group*
I am unhappy with the group's level of desire to succeed* 135 .35
This group does not give me enough opportunities to improve 135 .52
my personal performance*
I do not like style of work in this group* 135 .33
Note. Reliability coeffcients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coeffcients. Final Alpha coefficient for the index is .52. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing Alpha.
*Items were reverse coded.












Table 3-7 Reliability analysis on group integration-task
Item n Alpha if item
deleted
Our group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance 135 .19
We all take responsibility for any poor performance/mistakes by 135 .42
our group
Our group members have conflicting aspirations for the group's 135 .51
performance
If members of our groups have problems during work, everyone 135 .41
wants to help them so we can continue working everyone in
group helps
Members of group do not communicate freely about each 135 .42
person's responsibilities within the group*
Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coefficients. Final Alpha coefficient for the index is .51. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing Alpha.
*Items were reverse coded.

Table 3-8 Reliability analysis on individual items of group integration-social
Item n Alpha if item
deleted
Members of our group would not work on their own rather than 135 .49
as a group*
Our group members socialize together 135 .33
Our group would like to spend time together off work 135 .11
Members of our group stick together after work 135 .26
Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item total
correlation coefficients.
Final coefficient for the index is .65. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing
Alpha.
*Item was reverse coded.




















Limpopo


t'


Figure 3-1 Location of study farms in Limpopo Province



























PolIo kwan e
7 ( Municipality~





Figure 3-2 Distribution of study farms between the two municipalities


Molemole
Municipality









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The previous chapter presented research design and methodology that facilitated data

collection. Instruments used in the study were presented. At the farm level (n=13), nominal data

were collected on the structural characteristics of study farms. At the individual level (n=137),

perceptions of group participants were measured on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, the

degree of group governance, and the degree of group cohesiveness. Demographics and other

nominal data were also collected at the individual level (n=137). Scale response type format

responses were summated and scores were computed. T-tests were performed for the equality of

means and variance. Other nominal data were open-coded and themes were identified. Linear

regression analysis was used to identify causal relationships between perceived group

cohesiveness and the explanatory variables.

Profile of Study Farms

The Genesis of Study Farms

Although land redistribution was a country-wide program, reasons for launching claims for

the farms under study varied. Therefore, current patterns of membership in the groups under

study were indicative of earlier processes that triggered interest in launching land claims. Farms

such as Lwala le Meetse, Monyamane, Makamotshe already had ongoing collaborative relations

with previous farm owners. Such collaborations included renting out grazing land to livestock

owners in the villages nearby, and employing villagers as wage laborers on those farms.

Thusanang and Makamotshe had beneficiaries who had been employees and tenants prior to

redistribution, whereas the beneficiaries of Maboi 3 and 6 farms had been evicted from the farms

and established village settlements near the farms. These villagers launched land claims at the

time the redistribution program was instituted.









Fanang diatla, Lehlabile, and Thusanang used to be owned by the same owner and the

employees at that time were encouraged to launch claims. Most of the beneficiaries at

Marginalized, Watervaal, and Marobala came from the same village Marobala village.

However, these farms were registered as stand-alone entities. Beneficiaries who were entirely

new to the farms (i.e., Marobala and Makamotshe) were registered together with those who had

been employees of the previous owners. In both farms, all group members remaining are those

who had been on the farms as employees, except for one beneficiary in each farm who had come

under land redistribution.

Characteristics of Study Farms

Study farms were registered either as trusts or communal property associations (CPAs).

Nine of the study farms were trusts, and four were CPAs (Table 4-1). Trust farms were led by

boards of trustees, whereas CPAs were led by steering committees. Trust farms were registered

with the "deeds onfce" of South Africa, and were subj ect to relatively stringent legal procedures

as compared to CPA farms. According to the deeds of trusts reviewed, the board of trustees was

registered as the legal owner of the trust, whereas CPA farms were administered by the

Department of Land Affairs.

Study farms occupied land area of 15,686 hectares, and a total of 1,784 individuals were

registered as rightful beneficiaries. Group size based on the number of registered beneficiaries in

study farms ranged from 37 to 398 (Table 4-1). At the time of the study, approximately 267

individuals had remained in farm groups based on farm records, representing approximately 15%

of the total beneficiaries that were initially registered. Approximately 85% of the beneficiaries

had discontinued their participation. According to the farm records reviewed, approximately

45% of the registered beneficiaries actually moved to occupy the farms after settlement (Table 4-

1), whereas 55% never turned up to participate in farm group activities. However, Table 4-1









shows that 65% of those who turned up after settlement had discontinued their participation from

the farms at the time of the study. In this regard, the turnover rate included beneficiaries who

never moved to occupy farms after settlement, as well as those who left the farms at some point.

Income Generating Activities and Remuneration of Farm Labor

Income-generating activities varied on respective farms (Table 4-2), and farms had adopted

various strategies for remunerating farm labor. Farms mainly keeping livestock (Lwala le

Meetse, Monyamane and Marginalized) sold cattle at least once a year. Makamotshe had fruit

trees and remunerated work performed at the end of the marketing season in December, whereas

Fanang diatla awaited income from sales in order to remunerate work already performed.

Depending on the income generated from sand mining, laborers at Maboi 3 were remunerated on

a monthly basis. At Mahlamba ndlovu, employees were remunerated monthly and beneficiaries

periodically received in-kind benefits such as maize, periodically. Therefore, distribution of

benefits and remuneration for farm labor was generally differentiated according to group position

and the rules-in-use varied. Farms renting out grazing land did not have any other ongoing

activities due to shortage of water and power supply for an extended period of time. Power cuts

were often due to outstanding debt and the theft of power supply equipment.

Ongoing activities ranged from individual to group-based activities. Some of the farms did

not permit performance of individual activities, whereas other farms combined both individual

and collective activities. On farms that permitted performance of individual activities, parcels of

land were demarcated. In Maboi 3 and 6, passive beneficiaries cultivated individual plots of land

and were not involved in group activities. Such patterns of land use were sources of tension and

conflict among beneficiaries. Remaining group members in Maboi 6 and Lehlabile performed

solely individual activities, whereas Thusanang had no income due to failure to maintain citrus

fruit trees. According to Table 4-2, the scale of production activities had declined as compared










with the activities that were performed at the early stages of farm occupation. Other constraints

that limited production activities included:

* Broken equipment and machinery.
* Limited access to farm inputs.
* Limited access to the market.
* Inefficient allocation of resources.
* Limited access financial assistance.
* Land bank debt.
* Limited follow up with government programs.

Demographic Characteristics of Members of Current Farm Groups

Fifty-five percent of the respondents were female, and forty-five percent were male (Table

4-3). The age range of respondents was between slightly under 30 years to 60 years or more.

Farms with the highest proportions of older respondents (i.e. 51-60 years or more) included

Marginalized (100%), Monyamane (88%), Makgofe (83%), Lwala le meetse, and Maboi 6 with

60%, respectively. Low levels of literacy were apparent among respondents (69% had no

primary education), and only 7% of the respondents had either high school education or post-

high school education.

Prior to their engagement on the farms, fifty-six percent of the respondents (56%) had

worked in the industry, and mainly male respondents performed such j obs (Table 4-4). Industry

jobs included working on commercial farms, building and construction, and mining. Professional

job positions most commonly included teaching. Other informal jobs included ownership of

small businesses and housekeeping, and these were performed predominantly by female

respondents (63%).

Household composition for the respondents included children (85%) as dependents, and

13% of the respondents still lived with parents (Table 4-5). Particularly respondents over 60










years as well as those with children below the age of 14 years (72%) earned government welfare

grants as their source of income (Table 4-6).

Respondents in farm groups generally came from either the same village or tribal authority

(80%), and the maj ority (89%) of the respondents were of the Pedi ethnicity, 5% were Vhenda,

and 4% were Tsonga. The other 2% of respondents were from other ethnic groups such as

Ndebele and Tswana. Positions held by respondents within farm groups are presented below.

Group Positions and Membership Duration

Respondents occupied various positions in farm groups (Table 4-7). Regular beneficiaries

constituted 48% of the membership in current farm groups, whereas 27% were hired as laborers.

Twenty-six percent of the respondents occupied leadership positions, and 19% were proxy

beneficiaries. Members of groups also included respondents who had previously worked on the

farms as employees (32%) for the former farm owners. Twenty-one percent of the former

employees were not registered as rightful beneficiaries in current farm groups. Nonetheless,

former employees (39%) also served as members of leadership. Former employees had become

part of the groups either as proxy beneficiaries (27%) or hired laborers (46%). Farms with the

highest proportions of respondents who were former employees include Makamotshe (93%),

Marobala (75%), and Maboi 3 (68%). One-third of the chairperson's positions were held by

females. Both male and female respondents constituted 50% representation in farm committees.

Although the maj ority of the respondents (92%) had been in the groups for two years or

more, some respondents had become part of farm groups later. All members of leadership as well

as most of the regular beneficiaries (98%) had been in farm groups for at least two years.

Similarly, former employees (32%) had been in the groups for at least two years or more, and

one-fourth (25%) were relatively new to the groups (i.e. less than six months). One-third of

proxy beneficiaries had been in the groups for less than two years. Group members who had










joined farm groups for less than a year were predominately women (75%). Furthermore, the

maj ority (75%) of proxy beneficiaries were females and a moderate proportion (44%) of the

employees were women.

The number of days individual members spent on the farms each week was in part

contingent upon ongoing production activities. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents spent

between 5-7 days on the farms, whereas 24% spent 3-4 days and 18% spent only 1-2 days (Table

4-8). However, some of the respondents whose farms had little or no activities also spent five or

more days on the farms. Therefore, amount of time spent on the farm was largely determined by

the ability to commute to the home village.

Respondents whose home villages were distant from the farms (36%) stayed on the farms

overnight, whereas those whose village dwellings were in close proximity to farms commuted on

a daily basis (74%). A high proportion of the respondents (71%) visited home villages on a

weekly basis. There was an overlap between respondents who visited home villages either daily

or weekly. Female respondents (61%) visited home villages weekly, while 62% of males visited

home once a month. Invariably, farms had rules and regulations regarding home visits as well as

contribution toward farm tasks. The ensuing sections present results on the study obj ectives.

Objective One

Describe Perceptions on Group Development Processes that Led to the Evolution of
Current Farm Groups, and Degree of Support Services Provided

Structures of Governance in Farm Groups

Themes that emerged on processes that led to the evolution of study groups are presented

in Figure 4-1. Members of leadership in respective farms were elected during land transfer

processes. During group interviews, participants indicated that leadership was elected based on

the capacity to represent claimants in various forums. Leaders were elected for their relative










competencies and had become signatories on behalf of the claimants. Although current farm

groups had the provision to reelect members of leadership, only three of the study farms (i.e.,

Monyamane, Lwala le Meetse, and Mahlamba ndlovu) had reelected committee members based

on specified guidelines. Trust farms in particular had not been able to officially change

leadership due to legal procedures associated with the entities. As a result, trust farms operated

under interim leadership.

Seven of the study farms did not have functional committees, and four of the farms did not

have meeting schedules. For those farms that held meetings, the meetings were held anywhere

from weekly to once a month. Farms without committees had the least number of group

members (2-6 members). The remaining group participants had become committee members by

default. Farm managers were at times co-opted to oversee farm activities. Four of the study

farms had managers and these managers were also responsible for establishing and maintaining

contacts with various service providers.

Interim leadership was established due to high turnover rates among members of

leadership. Participants in group interviews attributed turnover to the prevalence of corruption

among members of leadership. Abuse of power, poor management of resources, lack of

transparency, and poor communication led to economic bankruptcy and disruption of group

governance that had been in place. Consequently, some of the members of groups discontinued

their participation in farm groups.

Additionally, participants indicated that there were power struggles between beneficiaries

who had been on the farms as employees of the previous owners and those who came through

the land redistribution program. Other reasons that were raised during interviews as influencing

discontinued participation in farm groups included family responsibilities especially by women,









other employment opportunities, old age, as well as health problems and death. Because the

initial group processes had been disrupted, it was apparent that current farm groups did not

operate under the framework as it had been anticipated. Hence, various forms of land use

patterns, participation in group activities, as well as membership have since evolved. The

following section presents such results.

Patterns of Membership, Land Use and Participation in Group Activities

Figure 4-2 illustrates themes that emerged based on the various forms of land use, group

membership, and participation in current farm groups. Production activities were centered on

various enterprises, both agricultural and non-agricultural. Tasks were performed either

individually or by farm groups, and surrogate labor was at times used to perform tasks on behalf

of the group. Individual activities can be differentiated between those that were performed based

on consensus according to the rules of the group and those that overrode rules used in farm

groups. Group participants also included those participating on a part-time. Patterns of

participation, membership in current farm groups, and land use are summarized below.

* Group members participating in group activities on full time basis.
* Group members participating in group activities on part-time basis.
* Proxy group members participating in group activities.
* Hired/surrogate group members participating in group activities.
* Members performing exclusively individual activities.

Support Services Provided in Study Farms

Six of the farms received government assistance for purchasing equipment and machinery,

as well as other supplies such as vehicles. The extent to which assistance was provided varied

depending on the grant amount remaining after land transfers. Other farms had acquired grants

from other sponsors for example, Lehlabile, Thusanang, and Fanang diatla received a common

grant and had chicken houses built. Makgofe also built chicken houses through a grant acquired










from the Department of Health and Welfare. However, access to the market was a challenge for

most of the farms, and produce was generally sold at the farm gate.

Other forms of support services on the farms were in the form of strategic partnerships.

Strategic partners provided assistance and paid off electricity bills and had the power reinstated

in Marobala, Lehlabile and Fanang diatla. However, respondents indicated that some of the

strategic partnerships resulted in conflict because the parties involved did not always honor the

terms of agreement. Other service providers on the farms included academic as well as research

agencies.

Measures of central tendency on the degree to which support services were provided are

presented in Table 4-9. The mean for all the items was 3.00 and standard deviation ranged from

1.47 to 1.73. Responses on individual items were averaged and summated scores were computed.

According to Noruilis (2003, p. 469), scores can be subdivided into those that are below and

those that are above the median and the same principle was performed by using the mean. As a

result, the grand mean (M=- 9.00) was used as a cut-off point to divide the measures into

categories of low and high degree of support provided. The minimum and maximum scores were

3 and 15. As noted in Table 4-10, testing for the equality of the mean (t- -6. 13, p< .000) was

significant but not for the equality of variance (F= 2.52, p =. 14). The following section presents

results on data collected at the individual level.

Objective Two

Describe Perceptions on the Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits, Degree of Group
Governance, and Degree of Group Cohesiveness

Perceived Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits in Study Farms

A high proportion (88%) of the respondents earned income from the farms, and 64%

benefited in the form of food, and 42% benefited through various educational programs. Only









34% of the respondents earned benefits in the form of firewood, grazing land for livestock, and

individual cropping land. Apart from other support services provided, adult basic literacy

education program (ABET) was offered at Makgofe, Lwala le Meetse, and Maboi 3.

Measures of central tendency are presented in Table 4-1 1. Although farm groups and

benefits acquired were deemed important (M=~' 3.98), the living standards for respondents (M\~

=2.89) as well as that for other group members had remained the same (M=- 3.01). Respondents

were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with benefits (M~= 3.21). For all items, the standard

deviation ranged from .81 to 1.21. The minimum and maximum scores were 5 and 24. The range

was 19.

Individual items were averaged and summated scores were computed. The grand mean

(M=- 16.60) was used to subdivide categories of low and high degree of satisfaction with benefits.

As denoted in Table 4-12, the tests for the equality of variance (F= 5.54, p <.05) and equality of

means (t- -16.02, p <.000) for the degree of satisfaction with benefits was significant.

Table 4-13 presents frequency distribution of individual scores between low and high

degree of satisfaction with benefits in respective farms. Farms with high proportions of scores

below the mean (i.e. low degree of satisfaction with benefits) included Marobala (100%),

Marginalized (85%), Makamotshe (67%), Maboi 3 (55%), Monyamane (52%), Makgofe (50%).

And the farms with high proportions of scores above the mean (i.e. high degree of satisfaction

with benefits) include Fanang diatla (78%), Watervaal (75%), Lwala le Meetse (85%),

Mahlamba ndlovu (73%), and Maboi 6 (80%).

Perceived Degree of Group Governance in Study Farms

In Table 4-14, measures of central tendency illustrate strong perceptions on all items of

this index. Respondents were involved in both decision-making (M=- 4.04) and problem-solving

(M=- 4.04) processes, and various records were kept at all times (M=- 4.21). Benefits were









distributed equitably among group members (M=- 4.20) and the rules used for allocating benefits

to group members were followed (M=- 4.37). However, the standard deviation was wider for

some items than others and these ranged from 1.13 to 1.32. Farms with limited production

activities at the time of the study (Makgofe and Marobala) had moderate proportions of

respondents who disagreed with the items on recordkeeping. Some of the respondents in Maboi 6

(60%), Fanang diatla (44%), Mahlamba ndlovu (40%), Makgofe (33%), and Maboi 3 (27%),

were not always involved in decision-making processes. The minimum and maximum scores

ranged were 6 and 35, and the range was 29.

Individual items were averaged and summated scores were computed. Testing for equality

of means (M=-29.79, t- -8.86, p <.000) and the equality of variance (F= 59.45, p <.000) on the

degree of group governance was significant (Table 4-15). As denoted in Table 4-16, frequency

distribution of individual scores in farms with the highest proportions below the mean (i.e. low

degree of group governance) include Maboi 6 (100%), Maboi 3 (55%), Mahlamba ndlovu (67%).

And those above the mean (i.e., high degree of group governance) included Marginalized

(100%), Lwala le meetse (90%), Watervaal (75%), Makgofe (67%), and Makamotshe (73%) and

Monyamane (64%), Marobala (60%), Fanang diatla (55%).

Perceived Degree of Group Cohesiveness in Study Farms

Group cohesiveness is a multidimensional construct and both the task and social

cohesiveness are considered through two maj or perspectives i.e., task and social cohesion

(Carron et al., 1985). The two perspectives are: individual attractions to the group and group

integration. The degree of perceived group cohesiveness was measured through the indices on

individual attractions to group-social (ATG-S), individual attractions to group-ta~sk (ATG-T),

group integration-ta~sk (GI-T), and group integration-socal (GI-S). Results on individual indices

are presented below.









Individual attractions to group-social

Of the five items comprising this index, only three were retained (Table 4-17). The range

of the mean for these items represented moderate to strong perceptions (M= 3.39 to 4.05). The

standard deviation ranged from 1.02 to 1.29.

Individual attractions to group-task

Only one item was deleted from this index. The mean for all items represented stronger

perceptions (M= 3.72 to 4.05), and the standard deviation ranged from 1.12 to 1.17 (Table 4-18).

Sixty percent of the respondents at Maboi 6 agreed with the item "I am unhappy with my group's

level of desire to succeed."

Group integration-task

Only one item was deleted from this index and Table 4-19 presents central tendency on the

items that were retained. The mean for the items revealed close to strong perceptions on these

items ranging from 3.74 to 3.94. The standard deviation ranged from 1.12 to 1.19. Farms with

the least proportions of respondents who agreed with the item "our group is united in trying to

reach its goals for performance" included Makgofe (50%), Marginalized (43%), Mahlamba

ndlovu (34%), Maboi 6 (20%) and this item had a wider standard deviation as compared to the

others (SD= 1.39).

Group integration-social

Of the four items of this index, two were retained. The mean for the two items ranged from

3.25 and 3.39, and the mean represented moderate perceptions on these items. The standard

deviation was 1.20 and 1.30 (Table 4-20).

Summated scores on perceived group cohesiveness

Items on the individual indices of perceived group cohesiveness were averaged and

summated scores were computed. The minimum and maximum scores were 24 and 60, and the










range was 36. In Table 4-21, the tests for the equality of the means (M=- 44.91, t- -15.45, p<

.000) was significant, whereas equality of variance (F= 3.19, p= .07) was approaching

significance. Frequencies of individual summated scores in respective farms are presented in

Table 4-22. Farms with high proportion of summated scores below the mean (i.e. low degree of

group cohesiveness) included Watervaal (75%), Maboi 6 (80%), and Mahlamba ndlovu (60%).

Farms with high proportion of summated scores above the median (i.e. high degree of group

cohesiveness) include Makamotshe (80%), Marginalized (71%), Lwala le Meetse (70%),

Marobala (60%), Monyamane (56%), Maboi 3 (55%), Fanang diatla (55%), and Makgofe (50%).

Objective Three

Describe the Variance Explained by Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits, and Degree of
Group Governance on Degree of Perceived Group Cohesiveness

Correlations between Variables

Correlation coefficients with a negative sign are indicative of inverse linear relationships

between variables i.e. when one increase, the other decreases and the opposite is true for

positive relationships, and correlation coefficients of zero represent non linear relationships. In

Table 4-23, correlation coefficients ranged between low to moderate (r = .10 to .43). Group

cohesiveness had a low to moderate and significant relationships with degree of benefit (r= .22)

and degree of group governance (r= .43). Degree of group governance had a low and significant

relationship with degree of satisfaction with benefits (r= .18).

Regression Analysis

Explanatory variables utilized in the regression analysis include degree of satisfaction with

benefits, and degree of group governance. In Table 4-24, regression analysis on perceived group

cohesiveness was significant (F= 17.45, p<.000). The degree of group governance (t- 5.16, p<

.000) was a significant predictor, and degree of satisfaction with benefits (t- 1.89, p=.06) was









approaching significance. The multiple correlation (R) from the model is .45. The variance

explained by the model was low (R2 =.20), and the adjusted proportion reduction in error was

also low (R2 =. 19).

Multicollinearity was assessed through the tolerance values as well as the variance

inflation factor (VIF). Tolerance values were close to 1; therefore, there were no linear

relationships among explanatory variables according to Noruilis (2003, p. 273). Also, the

variation inflation factor (VIF) values were at least 1. Therefore, explanatory variables were not

highly correlated with each other.

Summary

Nominal data were described both at the farm (n=13) and the individual level (n= 137).

Measures of central tendency were used to summarize individual measures on the scale response

type format items. Variation between low and high degree of perceptions were explored by using

T-test for the equality of means and variance. Linear regression was used to explore the

relationship between explanatory variables and the response variable. Open coding was used to

identify themes from other nominal data. Findings of this study are discussed in the following

chapter, and recommendations and conclusions are also presented.









Table 4-1 Characteristics of study farms legal entities, land size, registered beneficiaries, initial group sizes, and current group sizes
Farm name Entity Land n of regi stered n of initial' % n current %
size (ha) beneficiaries group size group size
Mahlamba ndlovu CPA 2240 398 300 75 72 24
Maboi 3 Trust 4073 300 62 21 44 71
Monyamane CPA 2320 201 50 25 30 60
Maboi 6 Trust 1565 180 90 50 5 5
Marginalized Trust 1210 137 30 22 15 50
Lwala le Meetse CPA 1655 126 110 87 51 46
Makamotshe Trust 1392 121 52 43 19 37
Marobala CPA 232 88 25 28 6 24
Watervaal Trust 324 59 17 29 8 47
Fanang diatla Trust 617 49 12 51 9 25
Thusanang Trust 85 45 9 20 2 22
Lehlabile Trust 59 43 18 42 7 39
Makgofe Trust 15 137 15 41 5 33
SNote. Proportion of initial group size is computed based on the number of registered beneficiaries, and current group size is based on
initial group. Current group sizes may include both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
1= Group size at farm occupation.































Table 4-3 Age and level of education among respondents
Demographic .f %
Sex Female 76 55
Male 61 45
Age
51-60 years or more 82 60
31-50 years 40 29
30 years or less 13 10
Education
No primary 95 69
No high school 32 23
High school or more 10 7
Note. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing frequencies.


Table 4-2 Income generating activities in study farms
Farm Initial activities
Marginalized Livestock, crops
Lwala le Meetse Livestock, vegetables
Makamotshe Livestock, fruit, guesthouse


Current activity
Cattle sales
Cattle sales
Guava, avocado, and cattle
sales, guesthouse
Cattle sales & Sand mining
Vegetables
Sand mining & strategic
partners
None
Livestock
Livestock, chicken, crops
Renting out grazing land
Renting out grazing land
None
Strategic partner


Maboi 3
Fanang diatla
Marobala


Livestock, vegetables
Vegetables, chicken
Livestock, fruit, vegetables


Thusanang Chickens, fruit
Monyamane Livestock, crops
Mahlamba ndlovu Livestock, chicken, crops
Makgofe Chicken, crops
Watervaal Chicken, crops
Maboi 6 Livestock, crops
Lehlabile Chicken, fruit
Note. Current activities may not include initial activities.









Table 4-4 Other j obs held by individual members in farm groups
Job .f %
Industry 77 56
Other 55 40
Professional 4 3
Note. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing frequencies.

Table 4-5 Household composition for individual members in farm groups
Household member .f %
Children 117 85
Spouse 34 25
Parents 18 13
Note. Composition may overlap. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing
frequencies.

Table 4-6 Other sources of income for individual members in farm groups
Source .f %
Government grant 99 72
Other sources 45 33
Remittances 27 20
Note. Income sources may overlap. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing
frequencies.

Table 4-7 Group positions held by individual members in farm groups
Group position f %
Regular beneficiaries 65 47
Committee members 36 26
Employees 36 26
Proxy beneficiaries 26 19
Note. Group positions may overlap. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing
frequencies.










Table 4-8 Days spent on the farm each week by individual respondents
Days spent on farm .f %
5-7 days 79 58
3-4 days 32 23
1-2 days 24 17
Note. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing frequencies.

Table 4-9 Summary of items on the degree of support services provided
Item n MSD
Frequency of farm visits 13 3.00 1.47
Provision of information 13 3.00 1.73
Provision of advice 13 3.00 1.73
Note. Rating scale: 1= Never to 5= Always. M=- Mean, SD= Standard deviation.

Table 4-10 Effect of low and high degree of perceived provision of support services in study
farms


M~ SD


Item


.000
Low degree of support 8 2.21 .89 .31
High degree of support 5 4.20 .69 .31
~f- Frequency, M=- Mean, SD= Standard deviation, SE= Standard error.









Table 4-11 Summary of responses on degree of satisfaction with benefits
Item n MSD
Importance of benefits 137 3.98 1.13
Satisfaction with benefits 137 3.21 1.21
Improved living standard for self 136 2.89 1.13
Improved living standard for others 131 3.01 .81
Group importance 137 3.68 1.21
Note. Rating scale: 1= Very few to 5= Too many, 1= Not satisfied to 5= Completely satisfied, 1=
Much lower to 5= Much higher, 1= Not important at all to 5= Very important. Nonresponses
were treated as missing data when computing descriptive statistics. M=- Mean, SD= Standard
deviation.

Table 4-12 Effect of low and high degree of perceived satisfaction with benefits
Item f % M~ SD SE p
.000
Low degree of satisfaction with 61 45 13.18 2.63 .33
benefits
High degree of satisfaction with 76 55 19.35 1.86 .21
benefits
Note. f- Frequency, M=- Mean, SD= Standard deviation, SE= Standard error.

Table 4-13 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived satisfaction with benefits in
respective farms
Degree of satisfaction with benefits
Farm Low High
.f % .f %
Marobala 5 100 0 0
Marginalized 6 86 1 14
Makamotshe 10 67 5 33
Maboi 3 12 55 45 27
Monyamane 13 52 12 48
Makgofe 3 50 3 50
Thusanang 1 50 1 50
Mahlamba ndlovu 4 27 11 73
Watervaal 1 25 3 75
Fanang diatla 2 22 7 78
Maboi 6 1 20 4 80
Lwala le meetse 3 15 17 85
Lehlabile 0 0 2 100
Note. Frequencies are based on the number of respondents per farm. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing summated scores.










Table 4-14 Summary of responses on degree of perceived group governance
Item n MSD
Involvement in decision-making 137 4.04 1.32
Involvement in problem-solving 137 4.31 1.17
Record keeping on expenditures 136 4.41 1.14
Record keeping on sales 137 4.41 1.13
Record keeping on all records 137 4.21 1.30
Benefit allocation rules 132 4.37 1.13
Equitable distribution of benefits 137 4.20 1.23
Note. Rating scale: 1= Never to 5= Always and 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree.
Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing summated scores. M=- Mean, SD
Standard deviation.

Table 4-15 Effect of low and high degree of perceived degree of group governance
Item .f % MSD SE P
.000
Low degree of group 48 35 22.91 6.01 .86
governance

High degree of group 89 65 33.50 1.69 .17
governance

Note. Statistics are computed only on items retained during reliability analysis.
~f- Frequency, M=- Mean, SD= Standard deviation, SE= Standard error.










Table 4-16 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived group governance in
respective farms
Degree of perceived group governance
Farm Low High
.f % .f %
Maboi 6 5 100 0 0
Mahlamba ndlovu 10 67 5 33
Maboi 3 12 55 10 45
Monyamane 9 46 16 64
Marobala 2 40 3 60
Makgofe 2 33 4 67
Makamotshe 4 27 11 73
Fanang diatla 1 11 8 89
Lwala le meetse 2 10 18 90
Marginalized 0 0 7 100
Thusanang 0 0 2 100
Lehlabile 0 0 2 100
Note. Frequencies are based on the number of respondents per farm. Nonresponses were treated
as missing data when computing frequencies.

Table 4-17 Summary of responses on individual items of individual attractions to the
group-social
Item n MSD
I do not enj oy being part of the social activities of 137 3.39 1.29
this group*
I am not going to miss the members of this group 137 4.05 1.27
when I leave*
For me, this group is one of the most important 137 4.02 1.02
social group to which I belong
Note. Rating scale: 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. M=- Mean, SD= Standard
deviation.
*Item reverse coded.


Table 4-18 Summary of responses on individual items of individual attractions to the
group-task
Item n MSD
I am not happy with the amount of time I spend 137 3.94 1.14
working in this group*
I am unhappy with the group's level of desire to 137 4.05 1.12
succeed*
I do not like style of work in this group* 137 3.72 1.17


Note. Rating scale: 1= Strongly disagree to 5=
deviation.
*Items were reverse coded.


Strongly agree. M=- Mean, SD= Standard










Table 4-19 Summary of responses on group integration-task
Item n MSD
Our group is united in trying to reach its goals for 137 3.75 1.39
performance
We all take responsibility for any poor 137 3.74 1.19
performance/mistakes by our group
If members of our groups have problems during 137 3.94 1.12
work, everyone wants to help them so we can
continue working everyone in group helps
Members of group do not communicate freely about 137 3.83 1.19
each person's responsibilities within the group*
Note. Rating scale: 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. M=- Mean, SD= Standard
deviation.
*Item was reverse coded.

Table 4-20 Summary of responses on individual items of group integration-social
Item n MSD
Our group would like to spend time together off 135 3.39 1.20
work
Members of our group do not stick together after 135 3.25 1.30
work*
Note. Rating scale: 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. Nonresponses were treated as
missing data when computing mean scores. M=- Mean, SD= Standard deviation.
*Item was reverse coded.

Table 4-21 Effect of low and high on the degree perceived group cohesiveness
Item .f % M~ SD SE p
.000
Low perceived group 59 43 38.77 4.71 .61
cohesiveness
High perceived group 78 57 49.56 3.45 .39
cohesiveness
Note. f- Frequency, M=- Mean, SD= Standard deviation, SE= Standard error.






























Nonresponses were treated as


Table 4-22 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived group cohesiveness in
respective farms


Degree of per
Low


ceived group cohesiveness
High

80 1
75 1
60 6
50 3
50 1
45 13
45 5
44 13
40 3 1
30 14
29 5
20 12
0 2


Farm


20
25
40
50
50
55
55
56
60
70
71
80
100


Maboi 6 4
Watervaal 3
Mahlamba ndlovu 9
Makgofe 3
Lehlabile 1
Maboi 3 10
Fanang diatla 4
Monyamane 12
Marobala 2
Lwala le meetse 6
Marginalized 2
Makamotshe 3
Thusanang 0
Note. Items are summated for perceived group cohesiveness.
missing data when computing frequencies.










Table 4-23 Correlations between variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Sex
2. Education .06
3. Age .06 -.40**
4. Benefits .11 .32** -.23**
5. Governance -.09 .11 -.08 .18*
6. Group cohesiveness -.08 .09 -.02 .22** .43**
Note. Correlation is significant at .05 level (two-tailed)
** Significant at .01 level (two-tailed)

Table 4-24 Regression analysis on perceived group cohesiveness
Variable B SE fl t P
Constant 27.82 3.07 8.99 .000
Degree of group governance .42 .08 .40 5.16 .000*
Degree of satisfaction with benefits .26 .13 .14 1.89 .06**
Note. Correlation is significant at .05 level (two-tailed)
**" Signifieant at .01 level (two-tailed).



















Conflict
Autocratic leadership
Poor resource management





Disrupted systems
Production activities
Structures of governance


Administrative processes
Land settlement processes
Land transfers

Support services
Grant machinery
Production inputs
Land Bank loans

Regulation
Constitutions
Business plans


Turnover( Initial farm groups
Production activities
Governance


Group formation
Awareness creation
Recruitment
Generation of lists


Attrition


Current farm groups
Interim structures of governance
Poor economic conditions
Limited support services


Discontinued participation


Figure 4-1 Group development processes that led to the evolution of current groups within the study farms


--i











Group formation



Task performance


Individual activities


Individual labor






Individual benefits


Individual Farm
remuneration maintenance


Collective labor
Beneficiaries
Non-beneficiaries
o Employees
o Proxy
beneficiaries


Surrogate labor
*Employees
o Beneficiaries
0 Non-
beneficiaries





Conformi st


* Beneficiaries
* Non-beneficiaries
o Tenants
o Strategic
9 partners


Group governance


Collective benefits


Figure 4-2 Patterns of land use and participation in study farms


Beneficiaries





Deviant behavior





I Individual labor


Individual benefits









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This chapter explores the findings of the study as outlined in the previous chapter. The

purpose of this study was to explore the degree of perceived group cohesiveness as well as the

factors affecting group cohesiveness. The obj ectives of this study were (a) to describe

perceptions of group development processes that led to the evolution of current farm groups, and

the degree of support services provided (b) to describe perceptions of individual group members

on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance and the degree of

perceived group cohesiveness, and (c) to describe the variance explained by the predictor

variables on perceived group cohesiveness.

Structural Characteristics of Farms

Membership vs. Participation in Group Activities

Findings from the study revealed the prevalence of high turnover rates in study farms

(Table 4-1). Turnover was attributed to various causes. It was apparent that official status gained

by beneficiaries through membership in redistributed farms did not guarantee participation in

group activities. In some of the farms, the proportion of beneficiaries who moved to occupy

farms was as low as 20%. Borras (2003) noted that only 18% of the redistributed farms in Brazil

continued to be operated by beneficiaries. Participation in group activities in the study farms can

only be limited to those who had actually moved to occupy farms and perform production

activities, whereas those who never showed up are referred to as passive beneficiaries. Therefore,

defining current groups transcends recognition based on official status, and requires actual

participation in farm groups. Furthermore, nominal membership also refers to those beneficiaries

who discontinued their participation on the farms. Carron (1980, p. 233) defined a group as

characterized by purposive interaction in goal directed and interpersonal behavior, likewise









McGrath et al. (2000) defined groups as structured entities that emerge from the purposive,

interdependent actions of individuals.

According to Borass (2003), socio-economic status was used as the criterion for selecting

beneficiaries eligible for land redistribution in South Africa. However, findings from this study

revealed that recruitment and membership was based on open access and self-selection. One of

the features of market-led redistribution is that the actual request for land settlement is a

prerogative of the eligible beneficiaries. In order to achieve the required group size, interested

individuals had to recruit others and in that manner, membership was obtained through generated

lists. In contrast, formation of groups in redistributed farms of Colombia was reinforced through

pre-existing groups that were based on coincidence rather than on similarity of interest

(Deininger, 1999).

Passive beneficiaries in the study farms included beneficiaries who were employed

elsewhere. Such beneficiaries held employment as civil servants and others served in other

sectors of the industry. Other passive beneficiaries were the elderly and could not participate in

farm activities. Women with family responsibilities could not move to the farms that were

located far from village dwellings. Other beneficiaries had left farms for other employment

opportunities. This finding concurs with McCuster (2004) who observed that beneficiaries in

redistributed farms in Limpopo Province tend to discontinue their participation from the farms in

search for other livelihood strategies.

Nonetheless, group interviews revealed that widespread dissemination of information as

well as raising awareness during settlement processes was not achieved. This was especially true

among beneficiaries who came from different villages or tribal authorities. Communication

channels were not clearly identified, and prolonged administrative procedures prior to land









settlement led to member attrition. Failure to achieve widespread dissemination of information

also resulted in failure to register certain segments of the target audience. These findings suggest

that the ability for individuals to gain official status as registered beneficiaries was in part

contingent upon the dissemination of information about the program, thus prolonged

administrative processes led to member attrition prior to land occupation.

Some of the individuals who had been on the farms as employees for the previous owners

were left unregistered. This practice overlooked the guidelines stipulated by the White Paper on

Land Policy (1997, p. 9). Farms that combined individuals who had been on the farms either as

former employees or tenants and new entrants experienced a challenge in building rapport.

Conflict was rampant because of the temptation by the new entrants to treat those who had been

on the farms previously in a subordinate manner. Similar instances were also observed in Brazil

(Borras, 2003).

Study farms with group participants who had been on the farms as employees of former

owners include, Makamotshe (93%), Marobala (75%), and Maboi 3 (68%). It is worth noting

that current farm groups are comprised of both registered beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries

(Table 4-7). According to the legal framework of the farms, non-beneficiaries remain out of

status, except for proxy beneficiaries who represent passive beneficiaries. Zimmerman (2000)

cautioned for exercising care when selecting eligible beneficiaries in order for land redistribution

to be inclusive. Figure 4-1 gives an approximate schematic representation in chronological order

of the events that led to the evolution of current farm groups.

The study revealed that non-beneficiaries in current farm groups also served in leadership

positions. Evidently, current groups have been redefined over time through processes of

negotiation and bargaining. It has been apparent that membership in current groups has been










legitimized through participation in group activities for both beneficiaries and non-benefieiaries.

Therefore, membership as well as participation in current groups has transcended formal

recognition and groups have evolved and developed as defined by those involved.

Patterns of participation in current groups were indicative of the manner in which farm

groups have evolved. The patterns based on participation in group activities as well as farm

property use rights were apparent. Findings revealed that the boundaries with regard to

participation in group activities as well as land use rights had been redefined. In some of the

farms, both group-oriented use of land as well as individualized usage had been intertwined

(Figure 4-2). Passive beneficiaries tended to perform exclusively individual activities, and these

included seasonal maize cropping systems as well as access to grazing land for livestock.

Therefore, property ownership and land use rights evolved to include collective as well as

individual performance of tasks. McCarthy et al. (1998) emphasized that collective action

includes resources that combine both private and common ownership of property. McGrath et al.

(2000) asserted that as groups form, people, and their intentions, and resources become

organized into a coordinated network of relations and the group is bound as a social entity.

According to McGrath et al., groups eventually learn from their experience and adapt to events

occurring in their embedding contexts, thus, groups are not static but evolve.

English et al. (2004) differentiated between unitary and divisible task performance in

groups. The current study illustrated that the fragmentation of tasks into individual and collective

arrangements was not feasible. Performance of individual activities tended to interfere with

group activities. Furthermore, tendencies of inappropriate access to uncontrolled grazing as well

as harvesting of Girewood could lead to the depletion of the natural resource base. Such

behavioral patterns were sources of conflict among land users. Passive beneficiaries particularly









tended to deviate from the rules-in-use, therefore, disrupting governance structures. Details on

structures of governance are presented hereunder.

Evolution of Governance in Study Farms

Agrawal (2005, p. 3) indicated that governments have attempted in the past to incorporate

co-users of common property resources into the wider net of political relations, and new forms of

regulation in communities were created. Agrawal further asserted that governments had

introduced new technologies in the form of decentralized and increased participation by co-users

in the management of common property resources (p. 7). In the case of redistributed farms,

production resources were allocated in the form of farmland, and the government sought to

create employment opportunities and contribute toward livelihood systems of indigent segments

of the nation. As an innovation, redistributed farms were created as new entities that exposed

farm groups to new forms of agricultural production. By using external service providers, the

government provided rules and regulations to govern redistributed farms.

According to the deeds of trusts reviewed in some of the trust farms, the boards of trustees

were registered as legal owners of farm property. Trust farms were guided by a legal framework

that did not permit flexibility as opposed to CPA farms. The need for farm plans and other

codified documents such as constitutions were additional pre-requisites of land redistribution

(Deininger and May, 2000, p. 13; Lund, 1996, p. 551). External service providers were

contracted through a 9% planning grant that was built into the overall budgets allocated for

respective farms by the government.

Invariably across farms, constitutions and business plans were meant to regulate the nature

of both agricultural as well as group processes beyond land settlement. Evidence from the study

farms points out that the creation of legal entities particularly in the form of trust farms resulted

in skewed distribution of power among group participants. As a result, conflict was prevalent









within farm groups, and this led to the disruption of tasks performed as well as in the governance

of the groups. A respondent said, "we no longer use the constitution because it causes us to jight

among ourselves." McGrath et al. (2000) asserted that the rules guiding collective action depend

on initial conditions, subsequent situational factors as well as external conditions.

Poor management of farm resources as well as corruption among members of leadership

resulted in disrupted group processes in study farms. In addition, poor governance and economic

performance led to discontinued participation by some of the group participants. Similar

observations were made in Colombia where groups of beneficiaries did not have the capacity to

resolve internal conflict and could not achieve common goals, and such problems led to the

disruption of group structures (Deininger, 1999).

In this study, turnover by members of initial farm groups further resulted in consequences

that were deemed undesirable. Discontinued participation particularly by members of leadership

whose names had been endorsed in official documents tended to constrain remaining group

members. A study respondent said, .... there is nothrling ae I can do because we are requested to

show the deed of trust in various places we consult for assistance." Currently, the legal

framework of the farms does not permit deregistration of nominal beneficiaries without consent.

During June 2006, the Department of Agriculture made attempts to deregister passive

beneficiaries, but such were unsuccessful. A respondent said, "....it is not for the department to

deregister beneficiaries but to provide support." The legal procedures that are prescribed for

deregistration of passive beneficiaries present a daunting challenge. According to Cartwright and

Zander (1968, pp. 53-56), different stages mark the manner in which groups evolve. Carron

(1982) maintained that the early stages of group development may be confronted with resolving

problems relating to social cohesion much more so than at the later stages of group development.









Furthermore, Agrawal (2005) noted that governmental forms of governance for managing

common property resources had often failed to achieve sustainability. As a result, users of such

resources tended to develop rules and provided governance structures that were locally derived.

However, the effectiveness of such rules in relation to the broader social context has been

unclear (p. 19). The present study revealed that members of current groups tend to co-develop

rules and regulations. Thus, current farm groups evolved and the structures of governance have

been reinvented for the purposes of internal use.

The bulk of production inefficiencies experienced on the farms can be traced back to poor

governance on the farms. It was apparent that those in leadership positions had become

opportunistic and exploited other beneficiaries who seemed to occupy almost a subordinate

position. Bettenhausen (1991) declared that establishing and maintaining cooperative work and

group norms is essential to effective group performance. Furthermore, Tuckman (1965)

illustrated that groups evolve over time, and new group-generated norms may be established in

order to ensure that the group continues to exist.

Income Generating Activities in Study Farms

Although, some of the farms had received support either in the form of loans from the

Land Bank or the government to purchase machinery, it was evident that the scale of production

activities had declined from their origins based on current production activities (Table 4-2). An

earlier study revealed that redistributed farms in Limpopo Province and those from the Westemn

Cape generated revenues that were relatively higher in comparison to other provinces (Deininger

and May, 2000, p. 13). Interestingly, McCuster (2004) studied CPAs in Limpopo Province and

observed little intensification of land use as well as inadequate performance of farm activities.

McCuster acknowledged that the study had probably not allowed adequate time in order for

evidence on the economic progress of the farms to emerge.









A challenge facing current groups has been managing limited income generally accrued

over long periods of time. Group members shared income and little or none was saved for

purchasing farm inputs. One respondent said, "it is diffcult to expand the scale of production

because income is used mostly for salaries and not inputs. Some farms were faced with the

challenge of restarting production after a lapse in activity. Examples of such farms include

Makgofe, Watervaal, Lehlabile, and Thusanang. One beneficiary said, "we are just starting fions

the scratch in this manner. Given such evidence, farms had not been able to perform activities

as stipulated according to the business plans developed for respective farms. Similarly, farm

plans developed for redistributed farms in Brazil and Colombia were not used for purposes they

had been intended (Borras, 2003).

Six of the study farms had acquired debt, and three of these farms paid premiums

periodically, whereas the other three could not afford to pay back the loans in any manner.

Deininger and May (2000, p. 16) warned about protecting beneficiaries of redistributed farms

from bankrupt white farmers who some times encouraged beneficiaries to incur debt. Such

evidence was raised during group interviews in some of the study farms. Group participants in

such farms indicated that they had been summoned, and the farms could possibly be sold by the

Land Bank. Bank loans were generally acquired by members of leadership who had discontinued

their participation; yet the members in current groups had to settle the outstanding debt.

Furthermore, some of the farms had lost their equipment to lenders who confiscated equipment

as collateral against the debt.

Provision of Support Services

Three of the study farms did not receive support services at the time of the study, whereas

six of the study farms received support services from academic as well as research agencies.

These agencies provided technical support in areas such as animal husbandry and marketing.










Tompi Seleka College of Agriculture continued to provide support in some of the farms, and the

University of Limpopo was contracted by the Department of Land Affairs to provide entry level

training to beneficiaries.

Support services were provided periodically (M=- 3.00) and services were at times

provided on a proj ect basis. The sustainability of support services offered on a proj ect basis may

be prone to being questioned. It is questionable whether such an approach fosters an environment

of learning through reinforcement of educational opportunities. Members of current groups

rarely attended meetings where educational information was shared (M=- 1.88, n= 137). This

finding concurs with Aliber (2003) and Aliber et al. (2006) concerning the limited provision of

extension services. McCuster (2004) also reported limited training offered to CPA farms.

Furthermore, service providers who drafted farm plans did not have the responsibility to provide

support for the long term (Deininger, 1999). In addition, the need to coordinate the provision of

post-settlement support was observed.

Support services provided by the government on the farms did not necessarily involve

extension services. For example, Makgofe built chicken houses from a grant provided by the

Department of Health and Welfare, and group members received food parcels from this

department at the time of the study because the farm could not provide sustenance. The

Department of Health and Welfare also provided other services such as bookkeeping. Services

provided varied between farms. It was noted that the provision of support services outside of the

Department of Land Affairs tends to be an obstacle to providing effective support services in

redistributed farms (Deininger, 1999).

Only the Maboi 3 farm had received the Comprehensive Support for Agricultural

Programs (CASP) to improve the farm infrastructure, whereas Maboi 6 could not access the









CASP grant due to the lack of collective effort. Mahlamba ndlovu was allocated the remainder of

the settlement grant to improve infrastructure and purchase additional farm machinery. All of the

study farms within the jurisdiction of Polokwane Municipality had applied for grants, whereas

the farms in Molemole only became aware of the existence of said grants during this study. This

was indicative of the discrepancy regarding dissemination of information between the two

municipalities.

Strategic partnerships were another way for the farms to mobilize resources from

individuals with access to capital. However, these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

One respondent stated, "we don 't want a n re ahbyl person to come and' takettttt~~~~~~~tttttt advantage of us. One

of the issues tabled for discussion at the Polokwane SLAG Farmers' Cooperative meeting (1 1-

07-2006) was the concern about strategic partners who had taken over some redistributed farms,

and beneficiaries had lost access to such farms. Therefore, arrangements based on strategic

partnerships had the potential either to enhance or hamper task performance in study farms.

Testing for the equality of means was significant (t- -6. 16, p< .000). Five of the study

farms from Molemole Municipality had a low degree of support services, whereas four of the

farms with a high degree of support were under the jurisdiction of Polokwane Municipality.

Therefore, the perceived degree to which support services were provided was higher on study

farms that were located closer to the provincial headquarters than those that were farther away.

In spite of the findings that support services were only provided occasionally, respondents

were satisfied with support services (M=- 3.60, n= 137). Although respondents rarely attended

meetings where educational information was shared (M=- 1.88), information was shared among

group members at all times (M=- 4.44). Wittenbaum et al. (2004) asserted that the flow of

information within a group could either contribute or inhibit group decision-making and the









effectiveness of problem-solving processes. Conscious decision-making in collective action in

part involves sharing of information (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003, p. 14).

This section presented earlier experiences in study farms and the themes identified through

content analysis were discussed. The following section discusses results from the data collected

at the individual level (n=137).

Describing Current Farm Groups

Composition of Groups

Involving women in land redistribution was one of the pre-requisites of land redistribution

as was stipulated by the White Paper on Land Policy (1998, p. ix). In addition to the female

beneficiaries, other women had become part of current farm groups either as proxy beneficiaries

(73%) or employees (44%). Furthermore, group members who had j oined farm groups for less

than a year at the time of the study were predominantly women (75%). Thus, women did not

always possess official status in farm groups. McCuster (2004) observed a high proportion of

women in CPA farms in Limpopo Province.

The maj ority (69%) of current group members were at least 5 1 years of age or older. Social

welfare grants were provided to women at 60 years of age, whereas males received grants at the

age of 65. Depending on sex, respondents in this age range (i.e. 60 65) earned government

grants. Furthermore, respondents with children below the age of 13 years also received child

welfare grants. Although the maj ority of the respondents (85%) had dependent children, it was

common for respondents to live with grandchildren, and also unemployed adult children.

Another important source of income was remittances. Elderly respondents with live-in

grandchildren received remittances from the parents of said grandchildren who had migrated in

search of employment. Although skepticism was expressed against the provision of welfare










grants in South Africa (Aliber et al., 2006), it was observed that welfare grants provided to the

elderly were an important source of income among the indigent (May, 2000, p. 25).

Household composition generally included extended family members. Male respondents in

particular had spouses who received welfare grants because women received grants earlier than

men, and in some cases both spouses received social welfare grants. When asked to differentiate

between group members based on socio-economic status, respondents identified either receiving

remittances or receiving government grants by both spouses as indicators of being relatively

better-off.

Livelihood strategies of the respondents were characterized by low levels of literacy as

indicative of the kinds of jobs performed in the past. Industry jobs included farm work, building

and construction, and mining, with men mainly having performed such j obs. Women performed

other informal jobs such as housekeeping, sales persons in retail stores as well as being

entrepreneurs. A limited number of respondents performed professional jobs such as teaching,

nursing, whereas some of the younger respondents had post high school education but were

unemployed at the time of the study.

Current farm groups were comprised mostly of the elderly, and a similar observation was

made by McCuster (2004). Therefore, the predominance of the elderly among respondents may

be a potential threat to the longevity of the current groups. Bettenhausen (1991) noted that group

processes and outcomes are affected by the degree to which group members are similar or bring

unique qualities to the group. Resources that are deemed necessary in a group may include

knowledge, skills, abilities, or tools that the individual members bring to the group (Carron,

1980, p. 209). Therefore, the prevalence of low literacy levels in study farms may not foster a

synergistic environment. However, another school of thought suggested that the belief about









one's ability to successfully execute a given task does not depend on skills, but on the judgment

(efficacy) of what one can accomplish with the skills (Bandura, 1986, p. 391).

Are Members of Current Farm Groups Satisfied with Benefits?

Scholarship on task-oriented groups is based on the the ability to derive likely benefits by

the members. Similarly, Thorp, Stewart and Heyer (2005) claimed that group formation among

the indigent has great potential for enabling the members to reach their goals. However, Stocker

(2004) argued that the outcomes of a given proj ect may not be as important as the values

embodied in the proj ect. Myatt and Wallace (2003) postulated that it is tempting to think that

subscription to a particular group implies participation in collective activities leading to

achievement of likely benefits. Yet, Veraghese and Ostrom (2001) argued that neither group

membership nor group size will ensure the success of a given proj ect or task. Experiences from

redistributed farms are in line with the assertion made by Sugden (1984). Sugden declared that

there is no guarantee that likely benefits will be achieved from collective action, even though

access to all necessary tools required may be guaranteed. McCuster (2004) observed that lack of

productive use of farmland in CPA farms led to limited acquisition of benefits and discontinued

participation on farms as members searched for alternative livelihood strategies.

In this study, the benefits that were acquired by respondents as well as by the groups were

deemed important. However, the living standards of group participants had not improved (M=~'

2.89). Therefore, the contribution made by the farms to the livelihoods among the respondents

was not apparent. A respondent stated, "the farm sustains us when we produce and sell, so our

past successes give us hope." This was indicative of satisfaction with benefits not necessarily

based on the condition of the farms at the time of the study, but previous achievements were

sometimes considered and used as the basis for reflection by some respondents. Participants who

had worked as employees for the previous owners often indicated that they were willing to










persevere because it was possible to derive a living out of the farms as evidenced by their

previous employers.

Testing for the equality of the mean (M=- 16.60, t- -16.02, p< .000) and variance (F= 5.54,

p< .05) on the degree of satisfaction with benefits was significant (Table 4-12). Farms with high

proportions of individual scores (Table 4-13) below the mean (i.e., low degree of satisfaction

with benefits) were characterized in terms of sporadic sale of farm produce and remuneration,

limited income generating activities, and lack of capital reserves. Income was also generated by

non-agricultural activities such as sand mining from the rivers running through some of the

farms. The farms in the low degree of satisfaction with benefits category include Marobala

(100%), Marginalized (86%), Makamotshe (67%), Maboi 3 (55%), and Monyamane (52%).

Farms with high proportions of individual scores above the mean were characterized by

deriving benefits through various mechanisms and these included both individual and group-

based activities. Farms that practiced group-based activities were differentiated in terms of

ongoing production activities, presence of surrogate labor working on behalf of farm groups, and

benefits accrued to both employees and other beneficiaries through a monthly salary. Group

participants made contributions in some of the farms toward the salaries of the employees.

Deininger and May (2000, p. 15) found that farms with beneficiaries making cash contributions

had higher revenues as opposed to those without any contribution. In addition, some of the

respondents performed exclusively individual activities. Thus, benefits accrued to individuals.

Performance of individual activities was indicative of an emerging aspect on land use rights.

Both individual and group-based activities were combined in some of the farms.

Although not a common practice, some of the group participants, mainly beneficiaries,

with other employment commitments preferred paying for their working days rather than being










physically present and contributing toward task performance. This practice guaranteed

acquisition of benefits for such participants. This practice has raised concerns in relation to the

definition of groups based on interaction. Such patterns potentially distort the structure, thus

boundaries of the groups become ambiguous. Farms that constituted the high degree of

satisfaction with benefits category include Lwala le Meetse (85%), Maboi 6 (80%), Fanang

diatla (78%), Watervaal (75%), Mahlamba ndlovu (73%).

The manner in which benefits were derived in study farms varied. The interface between

group activities as well as individual activities revealed patterns of land use rights, property

ownership, and participation in group activities. However, the manner in which individual tasks

were performed either deviated or conformed to the rules of the groups. Performing individual

activities tended to lower cooperative effort, and individual activities performed in conjunction

with collective activities resulted in conflict in some of the farms.

The Degree of Perceived Group Governance in Current Farm Groups

Study findings demonstrated that current farm groups have evolved as reflected by patterns

of membership, participation as well as land use rights that were different from the initial

arrangements. Farms can be divided into those with group activities only, as well as those with a

combination of both individual and group activities. Members of current farm groups provided

collective labor in group activities, whereas individual activities were performed by beneficiaries

who either obeyed or ignored from the rules of the groups.

Measures of central tendency demonstrated strong perceptions with regard to group

governance. However, possible differences were detected by testing for equality of means (M=~'

29.79, t- -15.55, p< .000) and variance (F= 59.45, p< .000) and the difference between low and

high degree of group governance was significant (Table 4-15). Farms with high proportions of

summated scores representing low degree of group governance include Maboi 6 (100%),









Mahlamba ndlovu (67%), Maboi 3 (55%). These farms can be differentiated in terms of presence

of individual activities, heterogeneity in terms of socio-economic status, limited cooperative

effort, and part-time participation by members of leadership. It was observed that heterogeneity

resulted in asymmetrical access to resources in some of the farms. Previous studies on collective

action observed that social heterogeneity can lower cooperative effort (Dayton-Johnson, 2000;

Myatt and Wallace, 2004).

Nominal beneficiaries tended to demarcate land parcels to cultivate seasonal crops and

such deviant behavior resulted in conflict between those remaining on the farms. Social

heterogeneity also resulted in conflict among those who remained on the farms. In addition to

using farm property against the rules and regulations of the farms, nominal beneficiaries

vandalized farm property at times. Therefore, farms were confronted with challenges that were

both internal and external.

Within the groups, non-beneficiaries were not always involved in decision-making

processes and this variability is apparent given the wider standard deviation on the item (SD =

1.32). However, respondents were more likely to be involved in problem-solving than decision-

making (SD= 1.17). Respondents who were not always involved in decision-making processes

expressed that the farm leadership requested their opinions on matters only when said leaders

appeared to be in trouble. Wittenbaum et al. (2004) claimed that the flow of information within

a group either contributes or inhibits group decision-making and problem-solving effectiveness.

On the other hand, Katz et al. (2004) asserted that interpersonal relationships among group

members will largely determine the flow of information and resources.

In this study, variability in remunerating farm labor was symbolic of instances where non-

beneficiaries were generally remunerated only for the labor performed, whereas other in-kind










benefits such as quantities of maize were allocated only to beneficiaries. Such tendencies were

raised as concerns by non-benefieiaries in the groups. Respondents indicated skepticism about

leadership behavior. During individual interviews, illiterate respondents in particular raised

concerns regarding their inability to proofread written reports and other records for verification.

Such suspicions led to reduced trust in the leadership.

Other concerns that were raised about members of leadership were the tendencies to

participate on a part-time basis, whereas other group participants were present at the farms on a

full-time basis. At times, members of leadership participating on a part-time basis were in charge

of the allocation of farm resources and were perceived as a hindrance to progress by those

present on a full-time basis. Members of leadership participating on a part-time basis promoted

tendencies that "relaxed" the rules guiding the allocation of benefits in order to adjust for their

limited contribution toward farm related activities. Therefore, part-time participation, particularly

by members of leadership, had its own limitations. Such tendencies were a source of conflict

among group members.

Other farms experienced conflict due to opportunistic behaviors among group participants.

Opportunistic behaviors were in the form of loafing, which was prevalent in farm groups that

were attempting to resume production activities. Other participants in farms with low

cooperative effort were in the early stages of re-organizing themselves in order to initiate

collective activities. Forms of deviant behaviors were apparent among group members as well as

non-group members. Such behaviors included overriding the rules for tenancy for grazing

livestock, and unlawfully using farm machinery to perform individual activities. Conflict of

interests between allocating resources for individual activities and collective tasks was apparent.









Farms with high proportions of individual scores representing high degree of group

governance (Table 4-16) include Marginalized (100%), Lwala le Meetse (90%), Fanang diatla

(89%), Watervaal (75%), Makamotshe (73%), Makgofe (67%), Monyamane (64%), Marobala

(60%). These farms were characterized by contributions toward farm expenses, increased group

activities, and limited deviant behavior. On such farms, deviant or forms of opportunistic

behaviors were penalized and rules and regulation were developed within the groups. Penalties

such as substituting or paying for any missed day of work by group participants were imposed.

Furthermore, group members were required to satisfy any past dues, including monthly

contributions, before benefits were distributed.

Other rules that were exercised in the study farms included a differentiated rate of

remuneration for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Although non-benefieiaries were

prioritized for remuneration, beneficiaries were generally remunerated at a higher rate than non-

benefieiaries. For non-beneficiaries, duration of membership in the group was used at times to

determine the rate of remuneration. Therefore, involvement in group activities did not always

guarantee equitable distribution of benefits.

The Degree of Perceived Group Cohesiveness

Larger scores on the scale represented stronger perceptions of cohesiveness among group

members. Carron et al. (2003) noted that cohesiveness is a positive group property and

individuals who retain their membership in a group are unlikely to consistently use all options of

the scale. Carron and associates further asserted that participants who perceived their group

negatively were likely to disengage from the group.

The standard deviation demonstrated evidence that responses for some of the items were

more dispersed around the mean than others. Testing for the equality of means (M=- 47.79, t- -

15.45, p< .000) was significant, and the equality of variance (F= 1.53, p< .07) was approaching










significance (Table 4-21). Hardy, Eys and Carron (2005) proposed that the presence of cohesion

as an assumption of shared beliefs does not imply that all members of a group perceive cohesion

in the same positive light. Hardy and colleagues further asserted that strong perceptions of

cohesiveness might reduce the perceived cost of participation in successful groups rather than in

unsuccessful groups.

Shared beliefs among group members can be expected to be stronger in groups with more

complex task interdependence (Carron et al., 2003). However, it has been suggested that overt

behavior may not be consistent with the behavioral intent (perception, beliefs and attitudes) of

individual members (Alavi and McCormick, 2004). Alavi and McCormick observed that

cohesive groups generally encourage a positive atmosphere which is free from personal

squabbles, members benefit from the group, and cooperation and overall performance is

improved .

It is worth noting that low cohesiveness (Table 4-22) can be attributed to differences based

on performance of individual activities in study farms. Apart from co-ownership of property in

one of the farms, there was virtually no collective effort overall. The same applied to the farms

with limited production activities at the time the study was conducted. Therefore, fragmentation

of activities in some of the farms was practiced. The use of surrogate labor to perform activities

on behalf of the group reduced interaction among group participants.

In some instances, beneficiaries contributing little or no direct labor toward the activities of

the farm also earned benefits. Therefore, the structure of the groups was not robust and the

conceptualization of groups in this regard was distorted. Other beneficiaries who had remained

on the farms performed individual activities only. The study revealed that the presence of

individuals may not be the only factor necessary for continued engagement, but overt behavioral










practices should be taken into consideration. McGrath et al. (2000) argued that groups are

complex, adaptive and dynamic systems, and the systems develop and change over time. Farms

with high frequency distribution of individual scores below the mean (i.e. low degree of group

cohesiveness) include Watervaal (75%), Maboi 6 (80%), and Mahlamba ndlovu (60%).

It must be noted that farms with high proportions of scores representing high degree of

perceived cohesiveness were not without the challenges facing farms with low cohesiveness, but

challenges were experienced to a limited extent. A concern that was expressed by some

participants in relation to leadership behavior was lack of transparency on finances. Farms did

not always have a system of reinvesting income made from enterprises such as cattle husbandry.

As a result, group members were at times left with little or no activities to perform except for a

few herders who were hired and stayed on the farms on a full time basis. Farms also experienced

shortages with the water and power supply at the time of the study and this limited the ability to

perform production activities. A respondent stated, "we persevere because we have a vision and'

we will continue to participate."

Some of the farms operated under a system of clear guidelines and failure to adhere to

rules led to penalties. Friedkin (2004) asserted that groups are cohesive when group-level

conditions produce positive membership attitudes and behaviors, and interpersonal interactions

operate to maintain group-level conditions. Similarly, Tuckman (1965) pointed out that groups

evolve over time, and cohesiveness is developed when group members come to accept the group

and the idiosyncrasies of other members. Tuckman further asserted that the group becomes an

entity by virtue of its acceptance by members, their desire to maintain and continue, as well as

the establishment of new group-generated norms to ensure the group's existence. The farms with

high proportion of scores representing high degree of group cohesiveness include Makamotshe










(80%), Marginalized (71%), Lwala le Meetse (70%), Marobala (60%), Monyamane (56%),

Maboi 3 (55%), Fanang diatla (55%), and Makgofe (50%).

Farm groups comprising of members who had been on the farms as employees prior to

land redistribution had continued their engagement on the farms and continued to reside on the

farm premises included Makamotshe (93%), Marobala (75%), and Maboi 3 (68%). In addition,

Lwala le Meetse and Monyamane also had collaborations with the previous owners prior to land

redistribution. All of these farms also consisted of a considerable number of kinships and some

of them had j oined farm groups as employees.

Other farms showed moderate degrees of either of low or high cohesiveness. However,

farms that may be categorized as success stories under current circumstances are lumped

together under a high degree of cohesiveness. It has been expressed that high cohesiveness may

be counterproductive to the effectiveness of the group (Evans and Dion, 1991). In contrast, other

scholars argued that high levels of cohesiveness may be desirable in that these levels facilitate

better task performance and reduced conflict in the group (Hardy et al., 2005). Hardy and

colleagues also observed that increasing social cohesion could lead to the formation of cliques or

social circles within the group. A reason for employing surrogate labor in the case of the study

farms with larger groups was to ensure accountability. Therefore, the notion of "groups within

groups" in this study was at times utilized as a mechanism that facilitates task performance.

Factors Influencing Perceived Group Cohesiveness

Regression analysis on perceived group cohesiveness (Table 4-24) was significant (F=

15.21, p<.000). Group governance (t- 4.68, p< .000) was a significant predictor of group

cohesiveness, whereas the satisfaction with benefits was close to significance (t- 1.89, p=.06).

The multiple correlation (R) from the model was .45, and the model had low predictive power

(R2 =.20).









The degree of perceived group cohesiveness is symbolic of intentions by members of

groups to remain. However, the possibility that intentions by group members to remain in their

groups will be influenced by governance and degree satisfaction with benefits cannot be

overlooked. Knox and Meizen-Dick (2001) pointed out that the factors that affect the resilience

of collective action include among other things, the importance of participation in relation to

livelihood systems, the ability to organize and the capacity to manage resources as well as the

investment needed to make resources productive. Therefore, the ability by group participants to

generate benefits that contribute toward their livelihoods as well as group processes in regard to

governance will potentially determine the degree of cohesiveness of study farms.

Summary

The economic viability of study farms was hindered due to poor management of resources

and disrupted group structures that led to high turnover rates. As result, various patterns of

participation in study farms had emerged. Continued participation in study farms did not

guarantee access to adequate support services. The contribution toward the livelihoods of those

remaining in current farm groups was not apparent. Governance within current farm groups was

developed through naturalistic processes. However, interference either by the actions of passive

beneficiaries or opportunistic behaviors resulted in complex group structures whose boundaries

had become ambiguous. A statistical difference was detected between farms of low and high

cohesiveness. Regression analysis revealed that group governance and satisfaction with benefits

were both important factors. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in the following

chapter.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Group Membership

Most of the respondents in the current groups had reached the pension age range (60 for

women and 65 for men), and the livelihoods of these respondents depended on government

welfare grants. Low levels of literacy were prevalent.

Members of current groups included both beneficiaries and non-benefieiaries. Non-

benefieiaries did not possess an official status, and these included proxy beneficiaries as well as

employees. In some of the farm groups, there was an overlap between the positions held by both

beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Both beneficiaries and non beneficiaries were employed as

farm wage laborers. Farm employees were differentiated between those who participated in the

overall performance of group activities as well as those who provided surrogate labor. As a

result, interaction among group participants can be defined in terms of group positions occupied

in respective groups. Moreover, current groups can be characterized by the notion of "groups

within groups."

Objective One

Describe Perceptions on Group Development Processes that Led to the Evolution of
Current Farm Groups, and the Degree of Support Services Provided

Structural Characteristics of Study Farms

It was apparent that the structural characteristics of farms did not create an enabling

environment for collective task performance. Due to disrupted group processes, other forms of

land use and participation in group activities had evolved. Disruptions in farm groups were

indicative of group development processes that had occurred over time. Initial membership in

farm groups was based on official status and membership did not guarantee continued










participation in group activities. Approximately 85% of the registered beneficiaries were no

longer part of current farm groups. However, turnover can be pinpointed to various stages of

group development. Current farm groups can be differentiated from lists generated during

recruitment prior to land settlement. Only those beneficiaries who actually moved to occupy

farms after settlement had become part of farm groups, and the rate of turnover can only be

estimated based on such individuals. It is also important to note that the proportion of those

remaining on the farms is approximate given various patterns of participation and land use.

Current conditions on the farms can be traced back to specific events that occurred over

time. Particularly in trust farms, legal entities resulted in asymmetric distribution of power

between the leadership and other members of groups. As a result, poor farm management, and

corrupt leadership behavior resulted in the disruption of group processes (i.e. governance and

task performance).

Production Activities

Invariably, the scale of production activities on the farms had declined over time. Income

generating activities varied in respective farms, and various strategies for remunerating farm

labor were utilized. Farms with income generating activities earned benefits (generally

monetary) sporadically.

Provision of Support Services

The provision of support services on the farms was somewhat pluralistic in nature.

Although some of the farms had received government support in the form of machinery and

other kinds of inputs, there was an apparent lack of continuity in the provision of support

services. Research institutions and other government departments occasionally provided support

services. However, the proj ect approach may not be sustainable. Lack of follow-up with

government programs had created a sense of distrust of government officials by respondents.










Moreover, there was an apparent lack of coordination between government departments

providing support services on the farms.

Strategic partners provided assistance to rejuvenate some of the farms that had collapsed.

However, such arrangements did not always yield positive results and should be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis.

Objective Two

Describe Perceptions on the Satisfaction with Benefits, Group Governance, and Group
Cohesiveness

Satisfaction with Benefits

Benefits earned on the farms were perceived as important. However, the living standards

of group participants had not improved. A statistical difference on the degree of satisfaction with

benefits was apparent. Farms with high proportions of low scores on the degree of satisfaction

with benefits were characterized by lack of limited economic activities, and sporadic

remuneration generally earned after a long cycle of production and marketing. Farms with high

degree of satisfaction with benefits performed income generating activities and regularly sent

produce to the market. Performance of individual activities on such farms was at times permitted.

The degree of satisfaction with benefits can be differentiated based on the mechanisms

through which benefits were derived i.e. individual as well as collective performance of tasks.

Benefits were further differentiated according to group position. Employees were remunerated

for the labor performed, whereas other benefits accrued to other group participants based on their

official recognition as beneficiaries.

Although the study included only those who were present on the farms, contribution

toward group activities was not always limited to physical presence and interaction among group

participants. Such patterns of participation reflected the complexity of group structures. As a










result, it was difficult to define the boundaries and conceptualize groups given such patterns of

participation.

Group Governance

It was apparent that current farm groups had evolved to establish conditions that facilitated

emergence of strong perceptions regarding group governance. The difference between farms

with low and high degrees of group governance was significant. Groups in low governance farms

did not always involve all group participants in decision-making, and not all benefits were

allocated to all group participants. This was particularly true for the farms with non-

benefieiaries. Performance of individual activities encouraged tendencies to override rules-in-

use, and this finding was made it difficult to treat group governance as a matter of internal

processes.

Therefore, governance in current groups was not limited to the dynamics inherent within

groups, but was also confounded by the interference due to land use patterns. As a result,

governance on the farms transcended participation in group activities, but included aspects of

land use rights, and thereby created group structures with boundaries that have been difficult to

define. This finding is in line with McGrath et al. (2000) who asserted that groups might have

unclear boundaries that distinguish and connect them to the members as well as the specific

context.

Group Cohesiveness

A difference was observed between low and high degrees of perceived group cohesiveness.

However, care was exercised in examining the low degree of cohesiveness scores. This practice

is endorsed by the fact that behavioral intent may not be translated into overt behavior.

Furthermore, a low degree of cohesiveness can be indicative of the characteristics of farms and

these are presented below:










Group members performing individual activities.
Group members having limited interactions.
Individual and collective activities interfacing.
Passive beneficiaries performing individual activities.
Social heterogeneity leading to low cooperative effort.

Farms associated with a low degree of perceived group cohesiveness were characterized by

indicators that neither encouraged continued performance of farm tasks nor interaction between

group members. Such farms lacked mechanisms to advance collective oriented task performance.

Such indicators posed a challenge to the conceptualization of groups in this study. Furthermore,

indicators that emerged out of farms of low cohesiveness revealed specific areas that could be

targeted for support services.

Farms with higher scores of group cohesiveness were characterized in terms of:

Past history of work relationships and tenancy on the farm creating group identity.
Kinships leading to participation in groups.
Evidence of previous achievements resulting in motivation.

Indicators characterizing farms with a high degree of cohesiveness were indicative of the manner

in which farm groups had evolved over time. Farms with group members who had been

employees of the previous farm owners had remained. Past history of group members may

transcend work related experiences, but also can be traced back to the attachment to the farms

developing from generations of workers who resided on the farm premises. Other groups were

comprised of family relations and thus, had a high degree of perceived cohesiveness. Other non-

farm related indicators also included membership in a common group prior to participation in

farm groups. Farms groups with high cohesiveness also had non-benefieiaries as part of the

groups. Furthermore, indicators characterizing high cohesion farms are in part key factors that

could guide future redistributive programs. These Eindings do not assume that high cohesion

farms were not faced with the constraints that were observed on low cohesion farms. However,










indicators in high cohesion farms may be considered as possible guides to structure future

redi stributi ons.

Caution should be taken when differentiating study farms based on either low or high

degrees of cohesiveness. Possible biases in the form of social desirability and acquiescence must

be considered. It is possible that non-beneficiaries, in particular participating in group activities

may have contributed to social desirability. Groups on study farms had emerged out of

naturalistic processes of group development, and it was possible for participants to create a false

impression about their groups. Furthermore, study groups represented a cohort that is possibly

different from other redistributed farms. Therefore, generalizability of the study findings is

limited.

Objective Three

Describe the Variance Explained by Satisfaction with Benefits and Group Governance on
Group Cohesiveness

The behavioral intent of group members to remain in their groups has a futuristic

orientation. However, according to the study findings, the degree to which group members are

likely to remain in the groups was influenced by group governance and to a certain degree,

satisfaction with benefits. Therefore, the two aspects of group processes cannot be isolated,

though their contributions may vary. Governance in current groups has been confronted with

challenges due to patterns of participation and land use. Although evidence pointed out that rules

had emerged and were developed to facilitate governance in current groups, limited flexibility

regarding the legal entities may have been an impediment to progressive group processes.

Interference by nominal beneficiaries seemed to be detrimental toward internal group processes,

and performance of individual activities was disruptive to management of resources.









Redistributed farms are mainly task-oriented, and the governance of groups is intertwined

with task performance. Therefore, failure to address governance and advance production

activities may lead to "zero" cohesiveness (i.e., groups may cease to exist). However, the

predictive power of these factors on perceived group cohesiveness was low. This observation can

be attributed to overemphasis on internal dynamics in regard to group processes, and the failure

to account for other intervening variables such as deviant behavior and patterns of participation.

This limits internal validity of the study. Nevertheless, these findings necessitate the need to

develop context-specific operational variables in future studies. Furthermore, statistical analysis

was used to determine causal relationships between specific factors and group cohesiveness. The

statistical aspect of the study does not intend to override the practical significance of the study.

Hence, it is acknowledged that other factors such as demographics are important.

Moreover, negative items on the group environment questionnaire (GEQ) were difficult

to interpret and this problem was observed by others. Such a concern led to the development of

revisions on the instrument by Estabrooks and Carron (2000). Although such difficulties were

encountered in circumstances where the instrument was self-administered, negative items were

challenging to pose as questions during the question-and-answer process and these challenge

persisted during data entry and analysis.

Nevertheless, the study addressed construct validity by adapting an instrument that had

been standardized (i.e. GEQ), and the deletion of items from the instrument due to low inter-item

correlation coefficients further improved internal consistency. An Alpha coefficient of .66 was

an acceptable level for an exploratory study. Therefore, the measures employed in this study

were reliable. This study paves the way for further explorations of small group research in other

redistributed farms.










Implications

It can be deduced from the study findings that the implications of the study are far

reaching. South Africa is a nation in its democratic infancy and the issue regarding the ability of

the nation to socially construct itself remains a daunting one. Although the goals of land

redistribution are multi-pronged (White Paper on Land Policy, 1998, pp. 26-28), findings from

the study demonstrate that social inclusion may not be easy to achieve. If land redistribution is

aimed at making productive resources accessible, then it is desirable for the beneficiaries to

remain on the farms. Current study farms were characterized by high turnover rates, and the

impact toward the livelihoods of group participants remaining on the farms was not apparent.

Therefore, continued participation on the farms has not provided incentives for those remaining.

The importance of land redistribution in South Africa cannot be underestimated. However, it is

apparent by a large margin that land redistribution has not achieved the desirable level of impact.

It appears that South Africa is "reinventing the wheel" with regard to the implementation of land

reform. It has previously been reported that successes have been limited in Sub-Saharan Africa

and other parts of the world (Borass, 2003; Griffin et al., 2002).

The study included farms that were settled under SLAG. The thirteen study farms were a

population of the surviving farms in Capricorn District, and the other sixteen were shutdown for

reasons that may not be easy to unearth due to limited documentation. Two of the farms were not

included in the study because only one beneficiary on each of the farms had remained. Other

patterns of individual occupation of farms that were meant for groups were also observed on the

farms near the study farms. Therefore, redistributed farms should be monitored and evaluated in

order to mitigate opportunistic behaviors by self-selected elites who tend to occupy farms in

solitude.









It can be argued that SLAG was discredited due to its inadequacies. However, massive

resources were invested in the program and that must be considered. In addition, current

redistributions are also characterized by group-based acquisition of farmland (Hall, 2004, p.29-

39). A point worth noting is that turnover in group settings is inevitable because it is natural for

groups to develop in a manner that would cause some of the members to disengage as it was

shown by Tuckman (1965). Formation of groups is not a short-term obj ective for reasons that are

associated with naturalistic processes of group development. This observation does not intend to

endorse over-reliance on turnover as an indicator of successes and failures. Instead, the current

conditions on the farms raise implications that go beyond the context of the farms. An intriguing

question emanating from these study findings is whether land redistribution is an effective tool

for addressing issues related to rural development.

Another question that remains unanswered within policy-making circles is whether it is

worthwhile to invest public resources on the few participants who remain on the farms. Although

not to a desirable extent, beneficiaries as well as non-benefieiaries have continued their

participation on the farms. The lack of flexibility regarding the current framework may

potentially discourage continued participation for group participants who remain out of status.

Furthermore, passive beneficiaries whose sole interest is to perform individual activities are a

threat to group-oriented task performance. The need to develop mechanisms that would protect

group participants cannot be overemphasized. It may not be surprising to learn that the manner in

which study farms turned out to be was not anticipated.

However, it must be realized that members remaining in current farm groups represent

those who are committed to continue their participation. There is a need to retain younger

participants in farm groups given the predominance of older participants. This can only be









achieved if incentives are made to attract younger participants. Therefore, future studies should

investigate the forces of attraction among participants in redistributed farms and beyond. And

future redistributions could be structured around such study recommendations.

The lessons of land redistribution are crucial to the development of future land policy.

The effectiveness of land redistribution will yield limited outcomes if farms cannot be operated

profitably by the beneficiaries. Therefore, there is a need to view land redistribution from a

collectivist perspective. This approach should be viewed as a process that occurs along a

continuum. Failure on one of the links will result in failure in the entire chain. Implementation

processes as well as the outcomes should be embraced by the nation as a whole, rather than

placing blame on those responsible for facilitation (i.e., Departments of Land Affairs and

Agri culture).

Land redistribution was designed to relieve some of the social challenges facing the

nation yet evidence points to the deficiencies associated with the program. Future studies relating

to food security and the possibility of a decline in food production trends in the country since the

institution of land redistribution would be intriguing. It is also questionable if land redistribution

displaces poor civilians from their livelihood strategies such as farm labor. If beneficiaries of

redistributed farms do not remain on their farms, how is the country going to provide for such

beneficiaries? These are complicated questions. However, they have long-term implications for

social cohesion in the nation. Furthermore, a question that may needs careful consideration is

whether or not South Africa has a coherent rural development strategy?

It is acknowledged that the generalizability of this study is limited. However, insights

generated from this study are sound. Failure to address challenges facing current farm groups

allocated under SLAG may result in similar trends in future redistributions. This necessitates a










comparative analysis of LRAD as well as SLAG farms. Exploring perceived group cohesiveness

should be extended to LRAD farms as well as other groups organized around agricultural

production.

Other conceptual frameworks such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory

of planned behavior (TPB) as well as technology acceptance model (TAM) offer potential tools

to widen the understanding of other aspects of redistributed farms. Self-efficacy among

participants in redistributed farms can be explored to determine the confidence level needed to

successfully perform activities on the farms. These theoretical constructs are applicable and can

also be explored with the administrators of land redistribution given the set target of allocating

30% of farmland by 2014.

Recommendations

Future Research

1. Patterns of collective action should be differentiated from group formation based on task
performance. The conceptual framework of groups in redistributed farms should be
clarified.

2. Operational definitions of group cohesiveness that are specific to the context of
redistributed farms should be developed.

3. Given the cyclical nature of group cohesiveness, a longitudinal study design should be
employed. Causation may be easier to detect with such a design.

4. Other factors that influence perceived group cohesiveness should be explored based on
operational definitions and standardized measures should be developed.

5. Probability sampling techniques should be employed in order to increase the
generalizability of future study findings.

6. Research should focus on developing indicators of the economic as well as environmental
sustainability of redistributed farms.

7. Although there was no evidence of economic progress in most of the study farms, the
influence of group cohesiveness on performance should be explored in future research.









Practitioners


1. Support services on redistributed farms are warranted, and extension services should be
strengthened. The study revealed specific areas that can be targeted for support and these
included :

a. Access to the market.
b. Management of farms.
c. Leadership in farm groups.
d. Ownership of property and legal rights.

2. A separate division designated to the support of redistributed farms within government
departments should be established in order to ensure accountability. The study revealed
that remaining group members did not have reliable contacts within government
departments.

3. Coordination of support services provided either by research and academic institutions or
government departments is essential.

Policy

1. The emphasis on access to land by land redistribution should be differentiated from the
creation of task-oriented groups. Formation of groups may not be a short-term obj ective.
Legalization of farm groups should be performed at later stages of group development
and this might prove to be an effective censoring mechanism.

2. In the case of future land redistributions, beneficiaries should be given an opportunity to
opt either for group formation or for individual activities as their basis of operation.

3. Beneficiaries should be given an opportunity to renew their status periodically and failure
to do so should result in loss of status. The legal frameworks should be made flexible in
order to accommodate group participants j oining groups at later stages.

4. Beneficiaries should be provided with assistance in the development and adaptation of
rules and regulations, and assistance should be offered in farm management.

5. Non-beneficiaries in current groups should be awarded official and secure status in the
same way as rightful beneficiaries.

6. Robust mechanisms to protect remaining group members particularly from nominal
beneficiaries should be implemented.

Summary

Findings from the study illustrated that the land redistribution program has achieved less

success than had been anticipated. Study farms operated under marginal conditions and high










turnover rates were prevalent. Such findings hold implications for the country in its endeavor to

integrate civilians in the wider socio-political context. Although manifested at the micro-level,

implications from the study raise questions that relate to the ability of the country to foster social

cohesion in the long-term.























98A Psychology Bldg.
PO Box 112250
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
Phone: (352) 392-0433
Fax: (352) 392-2433
Email: irb2(Siufl.edu;
http://rgp.ufL~edu/irb/irb02


APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL NOTICE






UNIVERSITY OF

~FL OR IA

Institutional Review Board


September 25, 2006


MEMORANDUM


To: Tirhani Prudence Manganyi
PO Box 110540


CmuIra S. Fischler, Ph.D., Chair
From: University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02

Subject: UFIRB Protocol #2006-U1-0436
Group Cohesive~ness in Redistributed Farms of Limpopo Providence, South
Africa
Funding: The National Research Foundation of South Africa, and Oppenheimer
Memorial Trust of South Africa


The request, received September 15, 2006 to revise the above referenced protocol has been
reviewed and approved. Approval of this study runs through May 8, 2007.

Any further revisions to this protocol, including the need to increase the number of
participants authorized must be reviewed by the Board prior to implementation.


IF:dl


[revised data collection instruments, sample size, added co-advisor to protocol as one who see data.]


An Equal Opportunity Institution


















INFORMED CONSENT


Protocol Title:
Group Cohesiveness in redistributed farms of Limpopo Provinc~e, South Africa

My name is Tirhani Manganyi. I am a student from the University of Florida studying agricultural
education. I am currently working with the Center for Rural Comuity Empowerment (CRCE) at the
University of Limpopo particularly. I would like to spend some time visiting with you and talking to you
about the way in which you're organized and operate as a group and learn about your groups in some
detail. The purpose of this study is to learn about issues of group processes and group effectiveness.
Thank you for granting me the permission to become involved this study. I would like to talk to
youth group leader and ask him/her some questions about how big the group is and if there are people who
provide support to the group in any shape or form. Answering my questions will be an indication that
you've agreed to participate in the study voluntarily. Most importantly, ,;rlna,,;, rus, ri,, ,~ mai ion! to work
with you as a group means that Fll1 return to the farm and ask some more questions to individual group
members. Your participation in this study is voluntary and I wish to notify you that there'll be no tangible
benefit by being involved in this study. You are free not to answer any questions at any time and there
won't be any penalty for refraining. Answering the questions will take at the most an hour. I'11be happy to
answer some questions from you concerning the study. Each time I visit to the farm for the purposes of data
collection, I'11 leave one copy of this consent document for you records and PH1 also take a signed copy for
my records.
All your answers will be treated with confidentiality. Only specific individuals will handle the
information that you provide. Research assistants will help me enter the data into the computer and Mr
Thierry ~Lassale fromn the University of Limpopo will provide advice on data analysis. Also, data will be
shared with my University of Florida academic advisor Dr Nick Place and co-advisor Dr Sandra Russo
through email. Any information provided by individual group members will not be shared with other group
members, as well as leaders of the groups. There are no risks associated with participating in this study for
individual participants and your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law.
Results from this study will be made available to the group and the University of the Limpopo will
also have a copy. Also, results from the study will be made available to the public in the form of a
dissertation. In case you like to get in touch with me, my email address is tpmana~ufl.edu. And my
address at University of Limpopo is School of agricultural and environmna sciences; Center for Rural
Community Empowerment, University of Limpopo; P/Bag 1106; Sovenga, 0727; Tel. 015-268-4907 and
Fax. 015-269-3212. Also, Mr Thierry Lassalle can be contacted at the same address of the University of
Limpopo in case of any questions or concerns. If you have any questions about your legal status as a
participant in this study, you may contact UCFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL, 32611- 2250, USA; Tel. 091-352-392-0433 and email address ;Ir Tu fij~anl

Agreement:

By answering the questions, I agree to participate in the study voluntarily

Participant Date

Principal Investigator Date







Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Bo0ard 02
Protocol # 20(e ie /
For Use Through 05/08/2007



















Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Apa Items N of Items
.912 .914 3


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.707 .705 5


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Aha Items N of Items
.848 .850 7


Reliability Statistics on Perceived Group Cohesiveness (n=137)

Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Aha Items N of Items
.668 .670 12


Reliability Statistics Individual Attractions to Group-Social (n=137)


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.576 .573 3


APPENDIX B
CRONBACHS ALPHA COEFFICIENTS



Reliability Statistics on support services provided (n=13)


Reliability Statistics on Satisfaction with Benefits (n=137)


Reliability Statistics on Group Governance (n=137)













Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Aha Items N of Items
.524 .524 3


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.510 .502 4


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Apa Items N of Items
.657 .659 2


Reliability Statistics Individual Attractions to Group-Task (n=137)


Reliability Statistics Group Integration-Task (n=137)


Reliability Statistics Group Integration-Social (n=137)


Reliability analysis on degree of satisfaction with support services
Item n Alpha if item deleted
Our group is satisfied with the support services 136 .28
provided
I have attended meetings recently 136 .22
The information we obtain from meeting/tour is 114 .37
useful
Our group shares information obtained from 134 .23
meetings/tours
Our group expands production with proceeds from 137 .32
sales
Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach's Alpha and inter-item
total correlation coefficients. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing
Alpha. Items are reported as individual measures.










APPENDIX C
INSTRUMENTATION

Questionnaire Schedule to be administered to the leaders of
Questionnaire No. 01



Schedule # Date and Time

Name of Farm:

Name of Respondent: Sex M/F


1. I would like to begin to ask you about whether this farm is a Trust or a CPA?
(Specify)


2. Is this farm restituted or redistributed?

3. What leadership position do you occupy in this group, are you a (Check appropriate
box)

1. Chairperson
2. Secretary
3. Farm Manager
4. Treasurer
5. Other (Specify)

4. Are there any committee members who left the farm? Yes_ No

5. If YES, were you part of the former committee? Yes No

6. How many beneficiaries are presently on the farm?

7. How many are: (Specify number)

1. Males

2. Females

8. Are there beneficiaries who never showed up at the farm? Yes No

9. Are there beneficiaries who sent their next of kin to the farm?

Yes No












10. Are there beneficiaries who sent employees to the farm? Yes No

1 1. If YES, then who' s responsible for their remuneration? Explain




12. Are the any part time beneficiaries in the group? Yes No

13. If YES, how many part-time beneficiaries are: (Specify number)

1. Males

2. Females

14. Are there any passive beneficiaries on the group? Yes No

15. Do passive beneficiaries return during peak times of work to work as wage
laborers? Yes No

16. Are there employees in the group? Yes No

17. If YES, how many are:

1. Males

2. Females

18. What is the criterion for allocating benefits between employees and beneficiaries?
Explain





19. How many people are in the committee? Check that apply

1. No committee
2. 1-2
3. 3-4
4. 5-6
5. 6-7
6. > 8

20. How many of the committee members are:

M~en Women











21. Is the chairperson of the group male or female? Male_ Female

22. How many committee members are outside members? (Specify)

23. How often does the committee meet?

1. No meeting schedule
2. Weekly or more frequently
3. Biweekly (every two weeks)
4. Monthly
5. Bimonthly (every two minb lllr)
6. Less than 6 times a year
7. Other (Speci i)

24. Has the committee been reelected so far? Yes No

25. If YES/NO, what are the reasons for reelections? Explain



26. How often does the group meet?

1. No meeting schedule
2. Weekly or more frequently
3. Biweekly (every two weeks)
4. Monthly
5. Bimonthly (every two minb lllr)
6. Less than 6 times a year
7. Other (Specifyi)



Point of direction: The enumerator will pause and remind the participant once more
that he/she is participating in the study voluntarily and it is his/her right to stop or
withdraw some of your answers

27. Which organizations) is the farm affiliated to? List all



























































I


28. Is any of the beneficiaries on the farm holding any leadership position in such
organizationss? Yes No

29. Who represents the farm in such organizations? Specify current portfolio

1. Chairperson
2. Secretary
3. Farm Manager
4. Treasurer
5. Other (Specify)

30. Is there a strategic partner on the farm? Yes No

3 1. If YES, how have you benefited from this partnership? Explain






32. Which organizations) provide support services to the farm? Check all that apply

1. None
2. Ministry ofagriculture
3. Land Affairs
4. Land Bank
5. Professionals university
6. Cooperative
7. NGO
8. Ministry of health
9. Ministry of labor
10. Farmers from other farms
11. Other (Speci i)

33. What kinds of services do service providers provide? List all according to service
provider

Service provider Type of service provided













34. Rank the three most important services provided to the farm (1 being the highest
and 3 the least)









Point of direction for the enumerator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
questionss, a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground
and will be used as a visual cue for the participant

In the NEXT SIX questions, Indicate on a scale of 1- 5 how often do: (Write
appropriate number)

1. Never
2. R ar elyRRRR~~~~~~~RRRRRR
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always

35. Service providers visit the group

36. Service provides information to the group

37. Service providers provide advice to the group

38. Service providers provide finances to group

39. Group accesses implements and other equipment

40. Group members contact service providers to seek information or advise

41. Are you aware of the program called either CASP or Mafisa?

Yes No

42. If YES, how have you benefited from these programs? Explain


43. Is the farm recommended for revitalization? Yes No











44. Have you got a Land Bank loan on the farm? Yes No

45. Are you able to service the loan? Yes No

46. What is the most common means of contact between service providers and the
group? Check all that apply

1. Telephone
2. Cell phone
3. Visits to farm
4. Visits to service provider 's office
5. Other (Speci i)

47. Is there a telephone on the farm? Yes No

48. How far is the nearest office of the most important service provider located?
Check number according to importance of service provider

1. 10 -50Km
1. 50-100 Km
2. 100-150Km
3. 150-200Km
4. >200Km

49. What is the name of the nearest town to the farm?

50. How far is the nearest town from the farm? Check appropriate box

1. <50Km
2. 50-100 Km
3. 100-150Km
4. 150-200Km
5. >200Km

51. Where do you purchase farm inputs (Seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc)? Check all
that apply

1. Cooperative
2. Extension agents buys for the group
3. Department of agriculture purchases inputs
4. Rental cardelivers inputs
5. Don't Imow
6. Other (Speci i)

52. How far is the market where you purchase farm inputs? Check appropriate box











1. <50Km
2. 50-100 Km
3. 100-150Km
4. 150-200Km
5. >200Km

53. What time of the year do you sell produce? Specify according to commodity

Name of commodity Name of Market Time of sale


I I


54. How is produce transported to the market? Check all that apply

1. Vendors/pick up trucks come by
2. Extension agent(s) takes produce~tt~~tt~~tt~~t to market
3. Transport agency
4. Other (Speci i)

55. What kinds of machineries or equipment are there on the farm? Specify number

1. Tractors
2. Ploughs
3. Trailer
4. Water pump
5. Electricity transfor~rmerrt~t~rt~t~rt~
6. Other (Speci i)


56. Are there any machineries or equipment that are broken down?

Yes No

57. Did the group purchase implements with the grant? Yes No

58. What is your source of water?
1. Borehole










2. River basin
3. Other (Specifyi)

59. Are there beneficiaries keeping their cattle on the farm?

Yes No

60. What other individual activities do beneficiaries do on the farm? Specify








61. Do beneficiaries with individual activities bring their own equipment or use those
of the farm? Specify

62. What are rules for using farm equipment for individual activities?

Yes No


63. Do you rent out land for livestock grazing? Yes No

64. Do tenants bring along their own employees to the farm?

Yes No

65. If YES, how do tenants) pay for the service? Explain


66. How many villages are represented on the farm? Specify

67. Is any of the chiefs represented villages one of the beneficiaries?

Yes No

68. Does the farm have any relations with the traditional authority (TA)?

Yes No


69. If YES, what kinds of services does the TA provide?











70. Is there a counter claim against this farm?
Yes No

71. If YES, what incidences of conflict resulted due to the counter claim? List all
incidences










Also, enunterator will remind the participant once more that he/she is participating in
the study on voluntary basis and there 'll be no tangible benefit that will accrue to the
participant
And, the participant will be advised that he/she can withdraw any of the responses that
he/she provided, but otherwise the information will be kept confidentially
To conclude, the enunterator will thank the respondent for her/his participation and
ask her/hina if she/he have questions for the enunterator









Discussion guide for Group Interviews
Schedule No. 02

I started off by explaining the IRB protocol to the participants and remind them
that their participation is voluntary. Permission was sought from the participants
concerning the use of an audio tape.

1. I then reminded the participants about the number of registered beneficiaries and
to find out how were there on the farm (this information was obtained from
national data base on land reform)

2. How were group members contacted or how did you get to know about this
group? Who played what role of forming the group as well as liaise with the
Department of Land Affairs? In what other ways have group members contributed
to the formation of this group?

3. So, I would like to ask about the process that led to the selection of the committee

0 what criterion was used for selecting individuals to occupy respective
portfolios
o What was the mandate of leaders and the time frame for occupying the
office?
o What other responsibilities did the initial leader have outside the farm?

4. After settlement of the farm, when did the farm become operational?

o What kinds of activities did you start off with when you started working
on the farm?
o How did you manage to acquire capital (money, machinery) that was
needed to kick-start any activities on the farm?
o What kind of participation was expected from the members and how did it
occur?

The moderator reminded the participant once more that they were participating in the
study on voluntary basis and there'll be no tangible benefit that will accrue to them
And, the participant were advised that they could withdraw any of the responses that
they had provided, but otherwise the information would be kept confidentially

5. What kind of enterprises are currently there on the farm? How has the group
expanded production on the farm?
o Have you carried on with the same enterprises since the beginning? If not,
why not?
o What enterprises are relatively new on the farm?
o Has proceeds from sales enabled you to expand your production?
o Is access to finance relatively easier now than the time when you started?
o When did you employ workers? What was the motive for employing
workers?









o How do you remunerate people's work? Beneficiaries? Please specify any
changes that occurred over time

6. What are the rules that you are currently using in the groups? Do you still use the
same ones that you started with?
o If YES, explain how this was decided
0 If NO, explain reasons why
0 Are there by-laws in the group? How are these used? And how were these
rules-in-use developed when did you start using the rules

7. There are now so many of you remaining on the farm when did you start
noticing that other group members were disengaging?
o What would you say were the reasons for their disengagement?
o Would you cite any specific events that led to disengagement? Please
specify occurrences associated with discontinuance

8. What would you say are the reasons that led you (group members), remaining on
the farm to date not to disengage?

9. What are your perceptions about passive members of the group?
o Do you still regard these as part of the group?
o If YES/NO, what are the reasons?
o Do you think passive members have the right to use land for any purpose
(cropping, livestock keeping)?

10. Are there any group members present who once disengaged and returned back?
o Why did you decide to return to the group?

1 1. What can you tell me about the current members of the group in terms of group
functioning or rather group culture?
o What is your opinion concerning your membership in this group?
o How do you see yourselves as a group, Hyve years from now?


To conclude, the moderator thanked the participants for their time and participants
were asked they if she/he had questions for the moderator










Questionnaire Schedule to accompany Likert Scale (GEQ)
Questionnaire No. 03


Schedule # Date and Time

Name of Enumerator

Name of Farm:

Name of Respondent: Sex M/F


2. So, I would like to begin by asking you about the position you occupying on this
group (Check that apply)

1. Chairperson
2. Secretary
3. Treasurer
4. Regular member
5. Employee
6. Other (Specify)


3. How long have you been part of this group? Check that apply

1. 3 months
2. 6 12 months
3. 12 18 moths
4. 18 24 months
5. More than 2 years

4. So, what kind of a job you had right before you became a beneficiary on the farm?
Did you work as a:

1. Government official
2. Farm worker
3. Worked at a retail store
4. Housekeeper
5. Other (Specify)

5. What other j obs did do before you joined this group? (List them below)












6. Are you part of any other group except for this one? If YES, List all









7. What was the aim of the groupss? List according to the order specified in 3








2. ertr
3. raue
4. Rglrmme
5. OhrSeiy


8. HWhmatoiiny disdo you holdintl then g oup Specify arm ea ofgruadpoitohl


1. Chairperyso
2. Secreary




1. 1 days

4. 7 days

10. Do you currently live on the farm? Yes No

1 1. If YES, do you live in the farm house? Yes No











12. How often do you commute/visit your home village? Check that apply

1. Every day
2. Once week
3. M~ore than once a week
4. Once every two weeks
5. Once month
6. Less than once month


13. Are there rules for visiting home on the farm? Yes No

14. If you are one of the beneficiaries, are you one of the employees of the former
owners?

Yes No


15. If YES, have your responsibility changed since the past? Yes No


16. If YES, please explain the type of change




17. How has being part of this group benefited you? Check all that apply

1. Food for the home
2. Cash income
3. Learning new farming techniques
4. Meeting new people
5. Other (Specify)

18. Rank the most important benefits acquired through membership in this group
(With 1 being the highest and 3 the least)






19. How important are the benefits that you acquire from membership in the group?
Check appropriate box

1. Not important at all
2. Somewhat important
3. Fairly important










4. Important
5. Very important

20. How satisfied are you with the benefits acquired due to membership in the group?
Check appropriate box

1. Not satisfied all
2. Dissatisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Satisfied
5. Completely satisfied

21. What are the other sources of income in your household? Check all that apply

1. Remittances
2. Child support grant
3. Support grant for the elderly
4. Health support grant
5. Pension fund from former employment
6. Other (Specify)

22. How old are the dependents in your household? Check all that apply

1. O 15 years
2. 15 -30
3. 30 -45
4. 45 -60
5. 60 -75
6. Other (Specify)

23. How are you related with the dependants? Check all that apply

1. Children
2. Grandchildren
3. Aging mother/father-in-law
4. Other (Specify)


Point direction for the enumerator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
next couple of questionss, a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper
or the ground and will be used as a visual cue for the participant











24. On a scale 1-5, how would you rank your standard of living now as compared to the
time you joined this group? Check appropriate box

1. M~uchlower

3. About the samne
4. Higher
5. M~uchhigher

25. How many people in this group do you think come from the same wealth level
(Indicate appropriate number)

1. Very few
2. Few
3. About the samne
4. Ma'~ny
5. Too many

26. On a scale 1-5, how would you rank the standard of living for other people in this
group now as compared to the time you joined this group? (Indicate appropriate
number)

1. M~uch lower

3. About the samne
4. Higher
5. M~uch higher

27. How can you describe the richest person in your group? List at least THREE
Descriptive possessions

Rich Poor






Point of direction for the enumerator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
questionss, a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground
and will be used as a visual cue for the participant



















On a scale of 1- 9, how do you feel about the following statements
(1= Strongly disagree and 9= Strongly agree). Check tl e most appropriate r umber
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree/ Agree
disagree
Individual Attractions to 1 2 3 4 5
the group-Social

I do not enj oy being part of the
social activities of this group

I am not going to miss the
members of this group when I
leave

Some of my best friends are
on this group

I enj oy other activities more
than team activities

For me, this group is one of
the most important social
groups to which I belong


28. On a scale 1-5, how important is being part of this group to you?


1. Not important at all
2. Somewhat important
3. Fairly important
4. Important
5. Very important


29. How many people in this group are your: (Write appropriate number below)

1. None
2. 1
3. 1-2
4. 2-3
5. >3

a. Relatives












c. Friends from home

d. Friends that established on the farm

30. Do you have either relatives or friends in farms nearby? Please specify


Point of direction for the enumerator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
questionss, a step ladder with NINE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground
and will be used as a visual cue for the participant

31. On a scale of 1- 9, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly
disagree and 9= Strongly agree). Check the most appropriate number

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree/ Agree
disagree
Individual Attractions to 1 2 3 4 5
the Group- Task

I am not happy with the
amount of time I spend
working in this group

I am unhappy with my group's
level of desire to succeed

This group does not give me
enough opportunities to
improve my personal
performance

I do not like the style of work
in this group

I am not happy with the
amount of time I spend
working in this group


b. Neighbors from home











Point direction for the enunterator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
next questionss, a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the
ground and will be used as a visual cue for the participant

32. On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the support services provided to the
farm? Check appropriate box

1. Not satisfied all
2. Dissatisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor d'issatisfied'
4. Satisfied'
5. Completely satisfied


33. In the past 2 years, how many times did you attend a meeting/tour where
relevant information was available? Check appropriate box

1. None
2. Once
3. Twice
4. Three ormore


34. On a scale of 1-4, how useful was the information gained from meeting/tour

Check appropriate box

1. Not very useful
2. Somewhat useful
3. Quite useful
4. Very usefud


Point of direction for the enunterator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
questionss, a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground
and will be used as a visual cue for the participant


In the next COUPLE of questions, indicate on a scale of 1-5, how often does the group
perform to the following (Write appropriate number)

1. Never
2. R ar elyRRRR~~~~~~~RRRRRR
3. Sonsetintes
4. Qften










5. Always

35. Share information gained from meetings/tours

36. Keep records on expenditures

37. Keep records on sales of produce

38. Keep records on all the things you do

39. The group sticks to the rules for allocating benefits

40. Group members participate in decision-making

41. Group members participate in problem-solving


In the NEXT question, Indicate on a scale of 1-5, how do you feel about the following
statements (Write appropriate number)

1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree

42. Benefits from group are the same for all members

43. The group expands production with proceeds from sales

44. What level of education did you complete?

1. < Grade 7
2. < Grade 12
3. Grade 12
4. > Grade 12
5. Other (Specify)

45. If I may ask you, based on the following categories what is your age. Check the
relevant box

1. <30 years
2. 31 40 years
3. 41 50 years
4. 51 60 years
5. > 60years











Point of direction for the enumerator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
questionss, a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground
and will be used as a visual cue for the participant

46. On a scale of 1- 9, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly
disagree and 9= Strongly agree). Check the mc st appropriate numb er
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree/ Agree
disagree
Group Integration-Task 1 2 3 4 5

Our group is united in trying
to reach its goals for
performance

We all take responsibility for
any poor performance/
mistakes by our group

Our group members have
conflicting aspirations for the
group's performance

If members of our group have
problems during work,
everyone wants to help them
so we can continue working

Members of our group do not
communicate freely about
each person's responsibilities
within the group









47. What is the name of the village where you come from? (Specify name)


48. What ethnic group do you come from? Check that apply

1. Bapedi
2. Ba~henda
3. BaTsonga
4. Other (Specifyi)

Point of direction for the enumerator: In order to help the respondent comprehend the
questionss, a step ladder with NINE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground
and will be used as a visual cue for the participant

49. On a scale of 1- 9, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly
disagree and 9= Strongly agree). Check the most appropriate number
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree/ Agree
disagree
Group Integration- 1 2 3 4 5
Social
Members of our group would
rather work on their own than
work as a group

Our group members rarely
socialize together

Our group would like to spend
time together off work

Members of our group do not
stick together after work



To conclude, the enumerator will thank the respondent for her/his participation and
ask her/him if she/he have questions for the enumerator









Reflection Statement after Pre-Testing

At conception, redistributed farms of South Africa were modeled to represent systems

that are typical in commercial farming. It was believed that such idealized systems could operate

under highly mechanized conditions and that the farms could contribute a great deal towards the

livelihood systems of beneficiaries through large scale operations. It was also believed that the

farms could have positive extemalities by creating economic opportunities for unemployed rural

dwellers. Of particular importance, redistributed farms were setup in the form of collective

ownership of farm land, thereby creating common property resources owned by groups of

beneficiaries.

However, it became apparent at the onset that models of redistributed farms were rarely

known to the target audience (subsistence farmers and rural dwellers). Therefore, the government

then moved to encourage new co-owners (group members) of land to adopt business plans and

constitutions that were drafted by service providers (consultants). This points our attention to the

very fact that the government characterized redistributed farms in a very precedented manner.

The government seems to have made assumptions with regards to the manner in which farms

could be operated. Also, the government seems to have believed that group ownership of land

will yield similar results as 'former owners' who generally owned land as family enterprises.

Therefore, it remains important to investigate the extent to which the idealized systems have

been operationalized with respect to both governance and functionality. This study attempts to

investigate 'actual' experiences of beneficiaries remaining on the farms.

This study argues that ideal farming conditions could not be operationalized and that

beneficiaries operate under farming conditions that were not ideal in terms of farm capital as

well as group governance. Without ideal farming conditions it can be argued that beneficiaries of









redistributed farms have moved to 'reinvent' the farm systems. With that said, groups in

redistributed farms could be faced with the challenge of maneuvering and forging ways in which

they could operationalize the farms with minimal resources. Therefore, this study seeks to

investigate the availability of physical resources on the farms as well as the outcomes from

production activities. This would determine the extent to which benefits due to group

membership contribute to livelihood systems of individual members.

When groups were first set up, membership to the groups was based on 'open access',

whereas the size of the groups was directly equivalent to the cost of any particular farm willingly

offered in the land market. However, high turn over rate is probably indicative of poor economic

returns on the farms. On the other hand, it can be argued that beneficiaries remaining respective

groups have specific characteristics that enable them to become farmers of this type. And this

warrants investigative measures. It is therefore necessary to ponder questions that relate to the

socio-economic characteristics of the group members remaining on the farms.

This study argues that the quality of support services provided on the farms is part of the

production equation and the degree of satisfaction with services provided determines the extent

to which production operations could be effected. In addition, the presence of outside support

will determine whether farms acquire necessary farm capital, therefore effecting production

activities and benefits acquired from farm thereof. However, inasmuch as it is imperative to

acquire farm capital in order to engage in farm activities, access to the market as well as meeting

the market requirements for good quality produce, is yet another dimension that determines the

extent to which farms can be viewed as a 'source' and a 'means' of acquiring desired benefits by

individual group members.









On the other hand, it can be argued that service providers further influence the manner in

which the groups function to a certain extent. Through the use of the prescribed constitutions and

business plans, the nature of group decision-making as well as problem-solving processes is

confounded. Therefore, it can be argued that the presence of service providers bring another

power dynamic into the groups, be it in terms of either constitutions, business plans, or any kind

of farm capital that could be provided. Therefore, the nature of group dynamics inherent in the

groups is a function of both internal as well as external forces. The presence of external influence

will also determine the extent to which individual members are recognized and included in

various activities of the farm.

Group cohesiveness is defined as the "tendency for a group to stick together" (Carron et

al., 1985). Therefore, it is crucial to determine perceptions of individual group members to

determine the extent to which current group members are likely to remain on the farms.

Although group cohesiveness is centered on functionality as well as the governance of the

groups, reasons for sticking together will determine whether the farms contribute to the

livelihoods of individual members and the extent to which individual members are recognized

(the inclusiveness) within respective groups.

On the other hand, it can be argued that current group members evolved over time to

develop "group culture". However, given the cyclical nature of group cohesiveness, it is

important to trace the history of the groups to determine apparent trends in group membership

and the reasons thereof. This would in turn identify specific events in respective groups as

evidence of either continuance or discontinuance in the groups. A timeline will then be used to

determine the history of the farms.










Before Pretest Review Session: Instruments were Revised based on:


repeated questions
clarify meaning of questions
clarify scalar-response format questions
identify incomplete questions
identify irrelevant guidelines/correct
correct misstated instructions
translate English terms into the vernacular Sepedi direct translations may not
work
revise question numbering
Reverse code scalar-response questions
Deleted question on whether members have been part of other groups in the past
Questions were judged based on the conceptual framework underpinning the study

Post-pretest revisions

Re-look at quality of support services
o instead of using information over and over again, use support services and ask
them to specify the kinds of support
take out the question on who provides support for individual interviews but leave that
for leaders because it is repeated on both questionnaires
if there' s any support, then ask individuals, how satisfactory are the services
take the question on ranking of support services to the questionnaire for leaders -
another question to add in the Questionnaire for leaders is whether group uses
constitution or by-laws leave this for the timeline
for individuals, ask if they have dependents at home and relative age, the relationship
delete the question on what kind of information was shared during meeting, but ask
how useful was the information
delete question on how likely does group use rules for allocating benefits
move benefits same for all members from likelihood to strongly agree or disagree
I had to add an item on ethnicity on individual questionnaires and
access to the market
this study will not obtain a representative sample but some cases that can situations in
the farms
I had to add a question on whether the farm was under a counter claim or not
o Counter claim implies that the ministry of land affairs allows another
group/community to launch a claim towards that same farm (i.e. a farm
already claimed)
The question on possessions that are symbolic of wealth, ask it in terms of "within
the group" not any place else
The question on ethnicity, ask it in terms of: among the ethnic groups represented in
this group, which one is the most dominant, followed by which one?
Delete how do members commute to farm/village it' s a redundant question
Add a question on how important are the benefits and










* How satisfied are members with benefits
* I deleted questions on People in this group get along well, There is a lot of
cooperation in this group, Our group has many conflicts, they seem to repeat GEQ
* Deleted the question on the main current farming activity moved it to the timeline
* Added degree to which group members participate in decision-making and
* Group members participate in problem-solving









Conducting Research in Limpopo Province: Excitements, Frustrations and Lessons Drawn

Conducting research is often idealized as a process that can be formulated before hand and

prior to heading for the field. The researcher should be in a position to identify and clarify

constructs and all variables of interest in the study. This prepares the researcher to be in a

position to bridge the gap between theoretical constructs and real life experiences based on the

data collected (Rubbie and Babbie, 1993). Actually, this forms the basis of conducting research

and all other processes should be centered on this same point.

However, the dynamics as well as the context within which research is conducted may make

it difficult to plan according ahead of time. The dynamics of conducting fieldwork may vary

from one setting to the other. Data collection instruments may not always be useful under certain

circumstances. And because of such reasons, the researcher should be prepared to make

observations and make changes accordingly. And that's the reason why pre-testing exercises are

imperative. Pre-testing helps one to identify research instruments that are most effective under

certain circumstances.

Making an entry in the research setting

My experiences in this regard were not always as exciting. Gaining entrance to the farms

was not an easy undertaking. Entry to the farms included aspects of establishing contacts with

government officials who are working with the same farms. Officials either provided telephone

contacts for the farms or they took me to the farms and sometimes gave directions. Identifying

farms started through conversations with extension agents and they would indicate which farm

they thought was viable and were still operational, and those that were shut down. And extension

agents would express their approval based on which farm would be best for the research. This in

itself, proved to be misleading in the end. Extension agents have a track record of the farms but

they did not know what was actually going on the farms at that moment because they spend a










long time without visiting the farms. There isn't much of provision of extension services on the

farms and as a result, extension agents were not always aware of the progress made on the farms.

Therefore, it was also beneficial for me not to establish contact with district extension agents but

most of contacts were limited to only one the extension officers whose responsibility was to

work with redistributed farms.

The chairperson of Molemole farmers' Association also helped to me to visit other farms.

And he expressed his preference for farms that were operational as compared to those that he

regarded as shut down. A couple of farms that I visited with him were shut down but some of

them weren't. But I had to insist and went to the farm and prove that for myself. And they also

give you a picture that may be misleading at the end of the day. And I ended up including two

more farms in my study that my contact persons regarded as non-operational. I came to discover

later that the farms mainly operated with funds from the outside either through strategic

partnerships that were established.

The other aspect of entering the farms was on approaching beneficiaries on the farms and

introducing the study. Other farms made it easier to approach them and introduce the study to

them whereas others weren't. The leaders of the farms became the contact persons on the farms.

And such persons become an intermediate contact between the other beneficiaries and the

researcher. After introducing myself to the contact person on the farm, I left behind consent

letters and asked them to share the information with other beneficiaries. The consent letter was

translated and so both versions including English were given to beneficiaries. I would then either

return to the farm or make a phone call in order to find out if beneficiaries consent that I go

ahead with my study.









Other leaders on the farms were open to the study and made it easier to continue with the

study. Something interesting is the manner in which leaders of the farms would involve other

beneficiaries during my visits. Other leaders would encourage beneficiaries to speak up during

meetings with everyone and beneficiaries would express their concerns and also ask questions.

The most common question beneficiaries would ask was 'how will we benefit from your study"?

On the one hand, beneficiaries expressed concerns about the many people who go to the farms

and make lots of promises yet nothing follows through. Based on that, I had to be frank with the

beneficiaries and tell them that I have got no tangible benefit for them and that I was a student

and not representing any organization whatsoever. I told them that land redistribution is a

program that the government continues to implement and that they continuously seek ideas as to

how they could possibly tweak the program. I made it known to them that the results of my study

will be presented to them as well as the government. But the government has an absolute

prerogative to consider the results.

In general, tension on the farms looms large when you first arrive and people definitely

look at you as a stranger. As the researcher, I had the responsibility to make myself known and to

indicate that I did not have any intensions to make any promises except for expressing that I was

a student and all I needed was to learn from their experiences. And because I didn't panic,

beneficiaries told me that they would let me conduct my research because I opened up with them

and did tell them that I was a student. One old lady in one of the farms said "our little hand's lift

up many of you to top professional possessions, but you forget about us as soon as you reach

there. And such words are indicative of the exploitation that these people experienced in the

past. However, such scenarios can be interpreted either way. On the side of government officials

or any service providers collaborating with the government don't have control over bureaucratic










processes. As a result, various assignments are not translated into actual program implementation

in the end. Another explanation can be that government employs different service providers to

handle certain aspects of a program. At the end it is possible to find that a number of service

providers were involved in one program and accountability may be a difficult task to perform.

Therefore, many programs initiated by the government fall through the cracks and that

disappointed beneficiaries and they reacted by "closing up their world." I had to watch out as the

researcher because beneficiaries tried to bargain with me by playing a guilt trip, which may be

well justified. But this obviously weighed down on me. But this was one of the challenges I

encountered and I had to decide to give these people room to express their concerns and be frank.

At the end, I appreciated the level of political consciousness by group participants because it

showed that they're concerned about their lives and they would definitely not be on the farms if

they had something better to do. But the farms meant life to them and it is their responsibility to

make clear to anyone going there that they mean business and are left to fend for themselves.

On the other side, no matter how much I explained to leaders of the farms about my

intentions to eventually conduct both group and individual interviews, the leaders had assumed

that I would not return to talk to other participants since it took me at least two weeks or more to

return to each farm depending on the appointment schedule I had with individual farms.. By

interviewing leaders of the farms first didn't not only allow me to better understand the farms but

it also gave me a chance to draw closer to the rest of the beneficiaries without being seen like I

was invading their space. It had taken me some time to eventually connect with the rest of the

group participants.

Leaders who were not confident about their leadership positions felt somewhat threatened

by the time I conducted individual interviews. One leader on one of the farms once told me that










he would lock me out of the farm if I had plans to return and I came to realize later that their

most recent meeting on that farm did not give a good image of the leadership. It was this leader' s

defense mechanism to keep me away from other people by threatening to keep me out because

he knew that I would soon find out should I had continued to talk to the others. But the same

leader was very welcoming when I made my first visit to seek permission to conduct the study.

He even told me that I wouldn't leave without collecting any information since I'd made such a

long trip to visit with them. The leader eventually asked the other beneficiaries to excuse us after

they'd consented that I can continue with the study and I went ahead and administered the

questionnaire for leaders.

Beneficiaries on one farm fought at the time I arrived to request them to grant me

permission to conduct the study on the farm. The fight broke up and everyone disowned their

assumed positions. But just before I departed, I came to realize that the chairperson didn't want

to accept the consent document because he could neither read nor write and that seemed to

intimidate him. He finally accepted the document he said that the document can only read him. I

later came to learn that people may have different ways to communicate information to you. But

my immediate reaction was I wasn't ready to deal with something like that and thought I

probably will not return to the farm anymore. I called the farm after a couple of weeks and the

chairperson told me that I was welcome to conduct my study. This taught me that not all people

will receive me in the same way some were more open and some were not, depending on the

nature of group dynamics at that time. Also, I came to learn that I only had to do what I was

there for and didn't have to pay any attention to anything else like squabbles in the group.

Some of the leaders became somewhat withdrawn with time because they realized that I

was beginning to learn about how they conducted themselves. For example, I visited this one









farm several times after I called and asked for an appointment and also confirmed the

appointment but I could not find the leader whenever I went to the farm until I decided to go

ahead and conduct the group interviews. That was another way that other people used to

sabotage my research. I was more appreciative at the end because I even had much more

information about this leader that I wasn't aware of. And the leader showed disapproval of my

prerogative the next time I went to the farm. But at the end, I knew I wasn't there to make friends

with anyone and also aware that the individual participants had to consent in order for me to

conduct the study and any beneficiary had the right to deny me their consent, so I went ahead

and did my work. But I couldn't access the business plan for that particular farm because of the

same reasons. And this is yet another reason I was important for me to connect with everyone

else who were not in leadership positions because I was able to proceed with my study despite

other people. Some of the leaders on the farms can go to the extent of lying especially during

informal conversations, but the conversation that I had with other participants as well as the

extension agent in the Department of Agriculture helped me pick up on those false impressions.

Individual interviews

Beneficiaries did not always reveal specific information about each other during

individual interviews. For example, I realized in about three interviews that some of the

participants had defects such as hearing impairment, and probably learning disabilities. This was

frustrating during the interviews since I didn't know what was going on. This was in itself a

limitation to the study because I didn't have confidence in such responses, I wondered whether

they understood me or not. This could be an overstatement but for example, a leader on one of

the farms asked me to sign up the consent form on his behalf and somehow his responses were

generally off track. And this was something tricky to deal with because I had to pose the question










again after listening to his response and this led to lengthy interviews for such a respondent. It

was also evident that some beneficiaries felt intimidated by the questions and probably felt they

couldn't answer the questions. But part of the explanation could be because respondents did not

always pay attention to the question and they would tell me "what I wanted to hear." This meant

that as a researcher with the best interest in the interview, I had to listen very carefully and

follow the interview in order to be able counter question when they mention a contradictory

statement.

Beneficiaries would often at times raise other issues separate from what I was asking

them about and some of these issues were important and interesting. As a result, I was caught up

between administering the questionnaire and listening to their stories, and this resulted in lengthy

interviews. However, some beneficiaries would take advantage of your time to raise their own

concerns based on selfish reasons. So, the entire process starting when I first entered the farms

and all the information I gathered during the process became handy during times like these.

Giving rides to beneficiaries was another participant observation strategy I used and this gave me

a chance to ask about some issues that were 'sensitive'. However, participants at times took

advantage of me and caused me to deviate from my trips, particularly on the way to the farms

and I would end up spending a lot of time trying to reach the farm, and I never reached the farm

on one of the days.

As a result, my time at the farms was reduced and the only way I could mitigate that was

to tell them that it was too costly for me to go out to the farms and not accomplish my work for

the day. Because participants would even go to the extent of attending to other things as soon as

they reach the farm and forget about my interests was frustrating. Visitors on the farms included

people from various governmental agencies as well as financial institutions. It was after such










experiences that I came to learn establishing contact with the rest of the participants was

important. Other wise I was at times left by myself and I basically had no one to talk to when the

contact person (i.e. the leader) gets busy with other things.

Withdrawing of the study

The process of establishing rapport with the beneficiaries took quite some time and it was

so based on reasons that were well founded. Beneficiaries on the farms always had people who

came around to conduct their work and also made promises, but such promises never followed

through. On the other hand, leaders on the farms were generally the contact persons and the other

participants probably did not expect anyone to talk to them since most people talked to the

contact person. And so this took me some time to eventually be in talking terms with the rest of

the participants. I would walk over to their work setting when I got to the farm and greet them

and talk about anything. And eventually I was able to take pictures and this proved to be the

most effective way to connect with them and I took the pictures back to the farms in my

subsequent visits. This was a good ice breaker. And the participants started seeing me as

someone who was there to socialize and do something with them, no matter how little it was.

Another strategy I used was to buy participants little tokens such as bread and juice when I went

to the farms.

I would make it a point that I begin by greeting them whenever I visit the farm depending

on their work setting. And building the rapport made it easier for me to conduct individual

interviews because beneficiaries were at ease and they would also ask me to interview them.

However, the withdrawing study seemed pre-mature (I think I was beginning to enj oy myself on

the farms). This was either a good or not a very good thing. The more I become comfortable, I









saw myself beginning to involve in the issues on the farm and took sides. This was a signal that it

was time for to withdraw the study.

Also, I went to the farms to bid them goodbye at the end. But the timing wasn't very

good since it was close to Christmas and most people had started going home and so I couldn't

find most of the participants by the time I left. I was disappointed because I had promised the

participants that I would inform them when I was leaving.

Another thing that made me feel like the withdrawal was premature was because

participants kept on playing a guilt trip on me by saying that I would also disappear in the same

way as others did. But I later came to realize that the participants had forgotten that I was only

there for some time and that I would leave by the end of the year. And I could sense their

disappointment but I had to leave. This left me in a dilemma that made me think "it wasn't my

intention to disappoint them." But the reality was that the time and money allocated for the field

work can only go so far.

This also brought me as a researcher to a point when I started to think how much data

was enough. But for the sake of avoiding a biased view and becoming too involved with the

affairs in the groups, it was safe for me to withdraw the study.

Methodological considerations

The situation on the farms had forced me to make to consider making some adjustments

particularly on the data collection instruments. Sampling had become a challenge since only 13

farms were identified, so all of the 13 farms were included in the study. Also, farms with less

than 10 participants were included. Participants on the farms were interviewed depending on

their availability. Beneficiaries responsible for tasks such as herding cattle were not easy to get

hold of because they woke up early in the morning and went into the woods and can be anywhere










within a 4000 ha farm, for example. I came to realize that participants had various

responsibilities and conducting observations at a task setting with all the beneficiaries was not

going to be possible.

Group interviews were not always possible to conduct with the minimum number of

people required in a focus groups interviews setting. For example, participants had to Einish

packing guava fruit for shipping by the end of the day and the participants couldn't leave their

tasks to attend to my study. But even though they knew that they had a load to ship out on that

day, participants they couldn't advice me to come on another day. Given the economic

implications of traveling to the farms, I had to conduct group interviews with fewer participants

even in farms with large enough groups at times. And the same happened in case other visitors

came around or participants had other commitments. They wouldn't devote adequate time to me

even with scheduled appointments. This meant that I had to return to the farms on another day.

Group interviews were quite informative and I came to understand the histories of the

farms. However, inasmuch as group interviews were appropriate for understanding farms better,

it was not always possible for beneficiaries to open up about certain occurrences since the

perpetrators were also part of the interviews. One of the beneficiaries advised me to use another

mechanism to better learn about the farm history. This was a farm with a guesthouse that was

open o anyone as along as they paid, so I went and stayed at the guesthouse for a couple of

nights. This gave me sometime away from the university and I could reflect on my work. I also

used this time to engage in informal conversations and a whole lot of issues surfaced.

Using participant observation as one of the strategies for data collection accommodated

extra information that I noted at later stages. Each visit to the farms yielded new information that

I had not heard about before, and so the stories continued to unfold. I paid informal visits to the









farms whenever I was in other farms nearby and such visits enabled me to drop by the farms and

visit with the participants at the time they were relaxed during the lunch hour. This at times

meant visiting with the participants who mainly resided on the farms while others had left for the

day. This was again a good chance to talk about various issues they wouldn't normally talk about

in the presence of others.









REFERENCES


Adato, M., Carter, M. and May, J. (2004). Sense in sociability? Social exclusion and
persistent poverty in South Africa. Retrieved February 12, 2006 from
http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d000 1127/Pl1246-senserin_sociability
Dec2004.pdf

Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of government and the making of subj ects.
Duke University Press, USA.

Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of
resources. World Development, 29 (10): 1649-1672.

Aggarwal, R.M. (2000). Possibilities and limitations to cooperation in small groups: The
case of group-owned wells in Southern India. World Development: 28 (8), 1481-
1492.

Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for social sciences (3rd ed.).
Prentice Hall, Inc. NJ, USA.

Alavi, S.B. and McCormick, J. (2004). Theoretical and measurement issues for studies of
collective orientation in team contexts. Small Group Research: 35 (2), 111-127.

Aliber, M., Kirsten, M., Maharajh, R., Nhlapo-Hlope, J. and Nkoane, O. (2006). Overcoming
underdevelopment in South Africa's second economy. Development Southern Africa,
23(1): 45-61.

Aliber, M. (2003). What went wrong? A perspective on the first five years of land
redistribution in South Africa, with Homily for the next five. Research report of
the Human Science Research Council of South Africa. Retrieved September 10, 2003 from
http://www.oxfam. org.uk/resources/learn ing/landrights/downlaswogarf

Anderson, A.B. (1975). Combined effects of interpersonal attraction and goal-path clarity
on the cohesiveness of task oriented groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31 (1): 68-75

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. and Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th
ed.). Wadsworth Group, Thompson Learning, Inc. CA.

Bakeman, R. and Helmreich, R. (1975). Cohesiveness and performance: Covariation and
causality in an undersea environment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
11(5): 478-489

Baland, J-M. and Platteau, J-M. (1999). The ambiguous impact of inequality on local
resource management. World Development, 27(5): 773 788.

Baland, J.M. and Platteau, J.P. (1997). Coordination problems in local level resource
management. Journal of Development Economics, 53: 197-210.










Bardhan, P. (2000). Irrigation and cooperation: An empirical analysis of 48 irrigation
communities in South India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4):
847-865.

Berg, B.L. (2004). Focus group interviewing. In: Qualitative research methods for social
sciences. Pearson Education, Inc. Needham Heights, MA. Pp. 123-145.

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five Years of Groups Research: What We Have Learned and What
Needs to Be Addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2): 345.

Binswanger, H. P. and K. Deininger (1993). South African land policy: The legacy of history and
current options. World Development, 21(9): 1451-1475.

Bollen, K. A. and R. H. Hoyle (1990). Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and Empirical
Examination. Social Forces, 69(2): 479-504.

Borras Jr, S. M. (2006). The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some
Conceptual and Methodological Implications. Journal of Agrarian Change 6(1): 69-101.

Borras, S. M. (2003). Questioning Market-Led Agrarian Reform: Experiences from Brazil,
Colombia and South Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(3): 367-394.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Limpopo Province. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from
http:.//conci se.britannica. com/ebc/article-9002254/Limpopo

Bruening, T., Schrieffer, T., Bility, K., Carey, H., Mollel, N. and Ngomane, T. (2002).
Needs of Extension Officers in the Northemn Province of South Africa. A paper
presented at the Association for Intemnational Agricultural and Extension
Education Annual Conference. Durban, South Africa.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford Press. NY, USA. Pp. 108-130.

Burke, S.M., Carron, A.V., Patterson, M.M., Estabrooks, P.A., Hill, J.L., Loughead et al. (2005).
Cohesion as shared beliefs in exercise classes. Small Group Research, 36(3): 267-288.

Byrnes, K.J. (2003). Farmers organizations: Tapping their potential as catalysts for
change in small-farmer agricultural systems. In: Brewer, F.L. (2003).
Agricultural extension systems: An international perspective. XanEdu Original
Works. MI, USA. Retrieved 20, January 2004 from file://E: /ELECTRONIC%20
BOOKS/ FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20
BOOK.htm

Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N. and Sithole, B. (2001). Challenges to
proponents of common property resource systems: Despairing voices from the
social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development, 29(4): 589-600.










Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., Bray, S.R., Eys, M.A., Dorsch, K.D., Estabrooks, P.A. et al.
(2004). Using consensus as criterion for cohesiveness: implications for the cohesion-group
success relationship. Small Group Research, 35(4): 466-4891.

Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., Eys, M.A., Bray, S., Dorsch, K., Estabrooks, P. et al. (2003). Do
individual perceptions of group cohesion reflect shared beliefs? An empirical analysis.
Small Group Research, 34(4): 468-496.

Carron, A. V. and K. S. Spink (1995). The Group Size-Cohesion Relationship in Minimal
Groups. Small Group Research, 26(1): 86-105.

Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N. and Brawley, L.R. (1985). The development of an
instrument to measure cohesion in sport teams: The group environment
questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7: 244-266.

Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4: 123-138

Carron, A.V. (1980). Social psychology of sport. Mouvement Publications. NY, USA. Pp. 233-
257.

Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (1968). Groups and Group Membership: Introduction. In:
Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. Group dynamics: Research and theory (Eds.). Harper and
Row Publishers, New York. Pp. 45-62.

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. ITDG Publishing,
London, UK. Pp. 1-31.

Chang, A. and Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group
performance relationship. Small group Research, 32(4): 379-409

Christoplos, I., Ambridge, L. and Zellweger, T. (2003). Common framework for
supporting pro-poor extension. Neuchatel Group. Swiss Center for Agricultural
Extension and Rural development (LBL), Department of International
Cooperation. Retrieved March 17, 2004 from http ://www.neuchatelinitiative.net/
engli sh/ docum ents/C omm onF rameworkfor Supp orti ngPro-PoorExten si onMail
pdf

Chwe, M.S-K. (1999). Structure and Strategy in Collective Action. The American Journal
of Sociology, 105(1): 128-156

Clason, D.L. and Dormody, T.J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type
items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4): 3 1-35.

Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimental design and analysis issues
for field settings. Rand McNally College Pub. Co. Chicago, USA. Pp. 37-94.










Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods.
Quality of Life Research, 12: 229-238.

Collinson, M. (2000). A history of farming systems research. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. CABI Publishers. London, UK. Pp. 1-4.

Countrystudies of the United States. (2003). Federal Research Division: Library of
Congress. http://memory.loc .gov/frd/cs/zatoc.html

Cousins, B. (1999). Introduction: Does land and agrarian reform have a future and, if so, who
will benefit? In: At the crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21"t
century. Cousins, B. (ed.). Papers from a conference held at Alpha Training Center,
Pretoria. Published by Program for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of
Western Cape, and National Land Committee. Pp. 1-8.

CPA Act Communal Property Association Act of South Africa. (1996). Retrieved September
10, 2003 from http:.//www.caledonia. org.uk/socialland/south.htm

Dayton-Johnson, J. (2000). Determinants of collective action on the local commons: A
model with evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 62(1):
181-208.

Dayton-Johnson, J. (2000). Choosing rules to govern the commons: A model with
evidence from Mexico. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42(1):
19-41.

Deininger, K. (1999). Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from
Colombia, Brazil and South Africa. World Development, 27(4): 651-672.

Deininger, K. and May, J. (2000). Can there be growth with equity? An initial assessment of land
reform in South Africa. World Bank Policy research Working Paper 2451. Retrieved
October 2, 2003 from http://wblnO018 .worldbank. org/research/workpapers. nsf/
bd04ac9dal 50d303 8525681 5005076ce/2e4348flb8al e~ac85256960004d32fb/$FILE/wps
2451.pdf

DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied Research
Method Series 26. Sage Publications. CA. Pp. 60-99.

Development Report (2005). Agriculture in South Africa' s second economy. In: Overcoming
underdevelopment in South Africa' s second economy. Chapter 7.

Devereux, S. and Maxwell, S. (2003). Food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. ITDG
Publishing, London, UK.

DFID (2005). Pro-poor growth in the 1990s: Lessons and insights from 14 countries. A DFID
Policy Paper. Operationalizing Pro-Poor Growth Research Program. The World Bank.
http://www. dfid.gov.uk/pub s/files/growth-poverty-report. pdf










Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. J. Wiley.
NY, USA. Pp. 3-31.

Dion, K.L. (2000). Group cohesion: from "field of forces" to multidimensional
construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and practice, 4(1): 7-26.

Downing, S.M. (2003). Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data.
Medical Education, 37: 830-837.

Douglas, J. (2005). Transformation of South Africa schooling system: Teacher
professionalism and education transformation. Center for Education Policy
development. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http ://www.cepd.org.za/content/
Publications/Teacher%20Professionali sm.pdf

Duvel, G.H. (2004). Developing an appropriate extension approach for South Africa:
Process and outcome. South African Journal of Agric. Extension, 33: 1-10

Duvel, G. (1996). Institutional linkages for effective coordination and cooperation in
participative rural development. Journal of International Agricultural and
Extension Education, 3(2): 29-35.

Dyaram, L. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2005). Unearthed: The other side of group
cohesiveness. Journal of Social Science, 10(3): 185-190.

English, A., Griffith, R.L., Steelman, L.A. (2004). Team performance the effect of team
conscientiousness and task type. Small Group Research: 35(6): 643-665.

Emons, W.H.M., Sijitsma, K. and Meijer, R.R. (2007). On the consistency of individual
classification using short scales. Psychological Methods, 12(1): 105-120.

Enoch, J.R. and McLemore, S.D. (1967). On the meaning of group cohesion.
Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 48(2):174-182.

Estabrooks, P.A. and Carron, A.V. (2000). The Physical activity group environment
questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of cohesion in exercise classes. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(3): 230-243.

Etzioni, A. (1996). A moderate communitarian proposal. Political Theory, 24(2): 155-
171.

Evans, C. R. and K. L. Dion (1991). Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Small
Group Research, 22(2): 175-186.

FAO. (2004). Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin.
http://www.fao. org/documents/show~cdr. asp?urlfile=/docrep/008/y5 744e/y
5744e0a.htm










FAO (2003). The state of food insecurity in the world: Monitoring progress towards the
World Food Summit and the Millennium Development Goals. The Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/j 0083e/j 0083e00.pdf

FAO. 2002. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program. Ch 1. Retrieved March 3,
2006 from http://www.fao. org/documents/show~cdr. asp?urllfle=/ docrep/005/ Y6831E
/Y683 1E00.htm

FAO. (1998). Knowledge and information for food security in Africa: From traditional
media to the Internet. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http://www.fao. org/sd/CDdirect/C
DanOO017. htm

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5): 271-282.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S. and Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A
study of human factors in housing. Stanford University Press. CA. Pp. 151-180.

Friedkin, N.E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1): 409-425

Garson, G.D. (2007). Topics in multivariate analysis: Reliability analysis from Stats notes:
Retri eve d Augu st 3, 200 O7 from http://www2.cha ss.nc su.e du/gars on/p a7 6 5/reli ab.htm

Garson, G.D. (2006). Topics in multivariate analysis: Sampling. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from
http ://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/samplnht

GCIS (Government communication and information system). (2005). Pocket guide to South
Africa: Agriculture, forestry and land. Retrieved June 2, 2007 from http://www.gcis.
gov. za/docs/publications/pocketguide05/agricu0.pdf

Graforth, C. and Jones, G.E. (1997). The history, development and future of agricultural
extension. In: Swanson, Burton E.; Robert P. Bentz; and Andrew J. Sofranko.
(eds.). Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Chapter 1. Retrieved 20, January 2004
from file:///E:/ELECTRONIC%20BOOKS/FAO%20EXTENI %2BO
files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK. htm

Griffin, K., Khan, A.R. and Ickowitz, Z.A. (2002). Poverty and the Distribution of Land. Journal
of Agrarian Change, 2(3): 279-330.

Hackman, J.R. (1990). Groups that work ( and those that don't): Creating conditions for
effective teamwork. Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. CA. USA. Pp. 1-14.

Hall, R. (2004). Land and agrarian reform in South Africa: A status report. Research Report N.
20. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http ://www.plaas.org.za/publications/
researchreports/RR20









Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science: 162, 1243 1248. Retrieved 10 June,
2004 from http://www. sciencemag. org/cgi/content/full/ 162/3 85 9/1243

Hardy, J., Eys, M.A. and Carron, A.V. (2005). Exploring the potential disadvantages of high
cohesion in sport teams. Small Group Research, 36(2): 166-187.

Holmen, H. (2003). A green revolution for Africa: Does it need to be controversial?
International Center for Economic Research. Working paper series No. 4. Retrieved
September 12, 2003 from http://www.icer.it/docs/wp2003/Holmen4-03.pdf

Jayne, T.S., Villarreal, M., Pingali, P. and Hemrich, G. (2004). Interactions between
agricultural sector and the HIV/AIDS pandemic: Implications for policy. ESA
Working Paper No. 04-06. Agricultural and Development Economic Division,
FAO. Retrieved on 20, March 2006 from ftp://ftp.fao. org/docrep/fao/007/ae061le/
ae061e00.pdf

Jodha, N.S. (1986). Common property resources and rural poor in dry regions of India.
Economic and Political Weekly, 21(27): 1169-1181.

Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H. and Contractor, N. (2004). Network theory and small
groups. Small Group Research,(35(3): 307-332.

Kossac, S.N. (2005). Exploring the elements of culturally relevant service delivery.
Families in Society: Joumnal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(2): 189-195.

Knox, A. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and devolution
of natural resource management: Exchange of knowledge and implications for
policy. CGIAR systemwide program on property rights and collective action.
CAPRI working paper No. 11. Retrieved June 20, 2004 from http://www.capri. cgiar.
org/pdf/capriwp I1.pdf

Lahiff, E. (1997). Land, water and local governance in South Africa: A case study of the
Mutale River Valley. Rural resources, rural livelihoods working paper series.
Research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Global
environmental change program. Retrieved June 30, 2005 from http://www.sed.
manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publicatiosw/rdcmn/r wp07.pdf

Landers, D.M. and Luschen, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and the cohesiveness of
competitive coacting groups. International Review of Sport Sociology, 2(9): 57-71.

Leibbrandt, M., Levinsohn, J. & McCrary, J. (2005) Incomes in South Africa since the
fall of Apartheid. NBER Working Paper. No. 1 1384. National Bureau for
Economic Research: Cambridge, London, UK. Retrieved 20, March 2007 from
http://www.nber. org/papers/wl 13 84

Limpopo Provincial Government (2005). Growth and Development Strategy. Retrieved March
20, 2006 from www. 1impopo.gov.za/pub s_docs/docs/pgds%20document. doc










Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. (Eds.) (1996). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
Published by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Lund, S. (1996). An overview of the land reform pilot program. In: van Zyl, J., Kirsten, J. and
Binswanger, H.P. Agricultural land reform in South Africa: Policies, markets and
Mechanisms. Oxford University Press. Cape Town, South Africa. Pp. 547-562.

Machete, C.L. and Mollel, N.M. (1999). Extension and support services for smallholder
agricultural development in South Africa: Who is the smallholder farmer? In: At the
crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century. Cousins, B.
(ed.). Papers from a conference held at Alpha Training Center, Pretoria. Published by
Program for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Westemn Cape, and
National Land Committee. Pp. 340-348.

Matthew, B.A., Baker, F. and Spillers, R.L. (2003). How true is true? Assessing socially
desirable response bias. Quality and Quantity, 37: 327-335.

May, J. (2000). The structure and composition of rural poverty and livelihoods in South Africa.
In: At the crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century.
Cousins, B. (ed.). Papers from a conference held at Alpha Training Center, Pretoria.
Published by Program for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Western
Cape, and National Land Committee. Pp. 21-34.

McCarthy, N., de Janvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. (1998). Land allocation under dual-
collective use in Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 56(2): 239-264

McCay, B.J. and Jentoft, S. (1998). Market or community failure? Critical perspectives
on common property research. Human Organization, 57(1): 21-29

McCuster, B. (2004). Land use and cover change as an indicator of transformation on
recently redistributed farms in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Human Ecology,
32(1): 49-74.

McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present and
future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1): 95-105.

Meizen-Dick, R., Raju, K.V. and Gulati, A. (2000). What affects organization and
collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems
in India. Paper presented at the 8th Biennial meeting of the International Association for the
study of common property, Bloomington, Indiana.

Merriam, S.B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and
reliability in qualitative research. PACCE Joumnal of Lifelong Leamning 4: 5 1-60.

Mullen, B. and Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2): 210-227










Myatt, D.P. and Wallace, C. (2004). The evolution of collective action. Retrieved July 2, 2004
from http://malroy.econ. ox.ac. uk/ccw/pdf/CollAct. pdf

Myatt, D.P. and Wallace, C. (2003). Evolution in teams. Retrieved July 2, 2004 from
http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk.ccw/pdf/teamvl.pdf

Nagel, U.J. (1997). Alternative approaches to organizing extension. In: Swanson, Burton
E.; Robert P. Bentz; and Andrew J. Sofranko. (eds.). Improving Agricultural
Extension: A reference manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nati ons. Retri eved 20, January 2004 from fil e://E: /ELECTRONIC%20B OOK S/FAO
%20EXTENSION%20BOOK files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK.htm

NDA (National Department of Agriculture) and Statistics South Africa. (2005). Size of farms
and biographical characteristics of agricultural workers. In: Employment trends in
agriculture in South Africa. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.nda. agric.za/docs/
Employment/cover.htm

NDA (National Department of Agriculture). (2002). The integrated food
security strategy for South Africa. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from
http ://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2002/foodpol.pdf

NDA-NDLA (National Departments of agriculture and Land Affairs). (2005). Land and agrarian
reform in South Africa: An overview in preparation for the land summit. Paper presented
by NDA and NDLA at the Land Summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa. Pp. 29-53.

NDA-NDLA (National Departments of Agriculture and Land Affairs) (n.d.). Land redistribution
for agricultural development: A subprogram of the land redistribution program. Pp. 5-14.

NDA (2004). Progress report on the implementation of CASP. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from
http://www.nda. agri c. za/docs/CASP/CASP%20Report_3 1%20August. pdf

Noruilis, M.J. (2003). SPSS" 12.0: Statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall, NJ.

Oliver, P.E. (1993). Formal models of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 19
(1): 271-300

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.

Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of
economic perspectives: 14 (3), 137 158.

Ostrom, E. (1991). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective
action, political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge and New York,
Cambridge University Press.









Ostrom, E. and Gardner, R. (1993). Coping with asymmetries in the commons: Self-
governing irrigation systems can work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7
(4): 93-112.

Poole, M. S., Hollingshead, A.B., McGrath, J.E., Moreland, R.L. And Rohrbaugh, J.
(2004). Interdisciplinary perspectives on small groups. Small Group Research, 35


Poteete, A. and Ostrom, E. (2003). In pursuit of comparable concepts and data about
collective action. CAPRI working paper No.29. CGIAR systemwide Program on
collective action and property rights. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from
http://www. capri .cgi ar. org/pdf/capriwp29. pdf

Provide (Provincial decision-making enabling proj ect). (2005). A profile of the Limpopo
province: Demographics, poverty, inequality and unemployment. PROVIDE Proj ect
Background Paper: 1 (9), 1-19. Retrieved February, 20 2006 from http://www.elsenburg.
com/provide/documents/BP2005_l _9%20Demographics %20LP.pdf

Quiggin, J. (1995). Common property in agricultural production: Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 26: 179-200.

Randhir, T.O. and Lee, J.G. (1996). Managing local commons in developing economies:
An institutional approach. Ecological Economics, 16(1): 1-12

Razavi, S. (ed.). (2005). Shifting burdens: Gender and agrarian change under
neoliberalization. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
(UNRISD). Kumarian Press Inc. Pp. 1-34.

Rivera, W.M. and Cary, J.W. (1997). Privatizing agricultural extension. In: Swanson B.E.,
Robert, P.B. and Andrew, J.S. Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 20,
January 2004 from file:///E:/ELECTRONIC%20BOOKS/FAO%20EXTENI %2
BOOKfiles/FAO%20EXTENSION%20B OOK.htm

Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. and Freeman, H.E. (2004) (Eds.). Evaluation: A systematic approach.
Sage Publications. CA, USA. Pp. 301-330.

Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. (1997). (eds.). Research methods for social work.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. CA, USA.

Rural Survey (1997). Statistics South Africa. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from
http://www. statssa.gov. za/publi cati ons/PO3 60/PO360OJunel1999.pdf

Schafer, J.L. and Graham, J.W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2): 147-177.










Schmidt, K. (2005). Food security in South Africa: The case of subsistence farming.
Alternative Information and Development Center (AIDC). Retrieved February 10, 2006
http ://www.aidc.org.za/?q=book/view/524

Shapcott, K.M., Carron, A.V., Burke, S.M., Bradshaw, M.H. and Estabrooks, P.A. (2006).
Members diversity and cohesion and performance in walking groups. Small Group
Research, 37(6): 701-720.

Statistics South Africa (2003). Gross Domestic Product: Annual estimates 1993-2003 and
estimates per region 1995-2002. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from
http://www. statssa.gov. za/publi cati ons/PO44 1/PO44 1 3rdQuarter2003 .pdf

Sommer, R. and Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and
techniques. Oxford Press, New York. Pp. 159-169.

Stocker, G. (2004). Designing institutions for governance in complex environments:
Normative, rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and
contrasted. ESRC Fellowship Paper No. 1. Retrieved July 20, 2005 from
http:.//www.ipeg. org.uk/papers/E SRC%20Paper%20No%20 1.pdf!PHP SE SSID
=3c7044cc676b9946717eaf62b7bc5810

Sugden, R. (1984). Reciprocity: The supply of public goods through voluntary
contributions. The Economic Journal, 94(376): 772-787

Tapson, D.R. (1996). The technical component of mixed and livestock farming in semi-arid
areas. In: Lipton, M., Ellis, F. and Lipton, M. Land, labour and livelihoods in rural South
Africa. Volume Two: Kwazulu-Natal and Northern Province. Indicator Press, University
of Natal, Durban. Pp. 263-268.

Theesfeld, I. (2004). Constraints on collective action in a transitional economy: The case
of Bulgaria' s irrigation sector. World development, 32(2): 25 1-271.

Thorp, R., Stewart, F. and Heyer, A. (2005). When and how far is group formation a route out of
chronic poverty? World Development, 33(6): 907-920.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,
63(6): 384-399.

Tuomel, R. (2003). Collective acceptance, social institutions, and social reality:
Criticisms and Reconstructions. The American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 62(1): 123-165

UNAIDS. (2006). Retrieved March 2, 2006 from http://www.unaids. org/en/Regions_Countries/
Countries/south_africa. asp

Van Bergen, A. and J. Koekebakker (1959). Group cohesiveness in laboratory experiments. Acta
Psychologica, 16: 81-98.










Van Rooyen, J., Kirsten, J.F., Vink, N. and Simbi, T. (1996). Structural adjustment and
agricultural policy reform in South Africa. SD Publications Series. Office of
Sustainable Development Bereau for Africa. Technical Paper No. 34. Retrieved October
20, 2003 from http ://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/ag~transformto/aoypd

Veraghese, G. and Ostrom, E. (2001). The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective
Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal. World Development,
29(5): 747-765.

White Paper on Agriculture (1995). Retrieved October 20, 2003 from http://www.gov.za/
whitepaper/1 995/agriculture.htm#8

White Paper on Education (1995). Retrieved October 20, 2003 from
http://www.info.gov.za/whitepapers/1 995/education1.htm

White Paper on Land Policy (1998). Department of Land Affairs. National Office.
Pretoria, SA.

Whyte, W.F. (1986), The need for new strategy. In: Hildebrand, P. 1986. Perspectives on
farming systems research and extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Co.
USA. Pp. 1-11.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In: Silverman, D. (ed.). Qualitative research:
Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.), Pp. 177-199. SAGE Publications. London,
UK.

Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., Paulus, P.B., Hirokawa, R.Y., Ancona, D.G.,
Peterson, R.S. et al. (2004). The functional perspective a lens for understanding groups.
Small Group Research: 35 (1), 17-43.

Woolard, I. (2002). An overview of poverty and inequality in South Africa. Working Paper
prepared for DFID (SA). Retrieved 29, August 2007 from http ://datafirst.cssr.uct.ac.za/
resource/papers/woolard_2002.pdf

World Bank (2000). Rural development indicators handbook. In: World development
indicators. Rural development. Retrieved February 3, 2006 from http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/serylet/WD SContentServer/WDSP/IB/200 1/06/29/000094946
0 106 160404 1624/Rendered/PDF/multi Opage. pdf

Worster, A.M. and Abrams, E. (2005). Sense of place among New England commercial
fishermen and organic farmers: Implications for socially constructed
environmental education. Environmental Education Research: 11, 525-535.

Zeller, R.A. and Carmines, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The link
between theory and data. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, London. Retrieved
September 5, 2005 from http://classes~kumc. edu/son/nrsg953/readings/zeller~carmines.pd









Zimmerman, F. J. (2000). Barriers to Participation of the Poor in South Africa' s Land
Redistribution. World Development, 28(8): 1439-1460.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Tirhani Prudence Manganyi was born in 1976 in rural village in the north east of Limpopo

Province, South Africa. Tirhani grew up in the family of six with her parents and three siblings.

She attended and completed primary school in 1989 at Nhlengani Primary School. She

proceeded to Kheto Nxumayo where she completed high school education in 1994. At the

University of the Limpopo (the then University of the North), Tirhani obtained a bachelor' s

degree in agricultural management, honors degree in animal production and a master's degree in

agricultural extension. In August 2003, Tirhani started her Ph.D. studies at the University of

Florida after she was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship. Growing up in one of the poorest

province in South Africa, Tirhani understands the importance of agriculture's contribution

toward rural livelihood systems. Thus, Tirhani's interest in agriculture will greatly contribute

toward solving problems facing rural farming communities in South Africa.





PAGE 1

1 PERCEIVED GROUP COHESIVENESS AMONG PARTICIPANTS IN REDISTRIBUTED FARMS OF CAPRICOR N DISTRICT, LIMPOPO PROVINCE. By TIRHANI PRUDENCE MANGANYI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Tirhani Prudence Manganyi

PAGE 3

3 To my parents Gailes and Pa icky, and my siblings Tsudzuka ni, Hundzukani, and Lemukani

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS These little hands lift many of you to the t op positions, but you soon forget about us (Study participant at Marginalized Trust). I am indebted to my graduate supervisor y committee. I thank Dr Place for being the dissertation chair and Dr Russo as the co-chair. I thank them for their guidance and undivided attention that they devoted toward my graduate experience. I am grateful to Dr Irani for her advice on research design and statistical analyses and for enriching my graduate committee with her expertise. Dr Swishers contribution and guid ance with instrument development and research design made this dissertation possible. It is her co nstructive criticism that encouraged me to think outside the box. I thank Drs Swisher and Ir ani for devoting extra time to reading my dissertation during write up. I am grateful that Dr Hildebrand wa s part of the genesis of my graduate experience when I first came to the Un iversity of Florida (UF). I thank him for the academic support he provided when I first arri ved at UF, and I thank him for witnessing the conception of this dissertation and serving in my graduate committee as the representative of Farming Systems Research and Extension. To my sponsors, my thanks go to the Fulb right Commission of S outh Africa for funding the first three years of my study. I thank the National Research Foundation of South Africa and the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, without whose financial support, the fi eld work toward this dissertation would not have been possible. I thank the Center for Rural Community Em powerment (CRCE) at the University of Limpopo (UL) for providing an academic home while I was away from UF. I thank them for the office space and administrative support as well as the transportation they contributed toward the field work. I thank Thierry Lassa lle (CRCE advisor) for his willi ngness to discuss and give input toward my research. I am grateful to the support that Dr Pierre Yves Lemeur provided when he

PAGE 5

5 traveled from France to South Africa. I am inde bted to him for the time he spent visiting my research sites. I thank him for the enlightening di scussions and making the vi sit to the University of Western Cape possible. I thank the CRCE Coor dinator, Ernest Letsoalo. I thank him for his warm welcome at CRCE, and for being a friend. The team made my stay at CRCE enjoyable. My special thanks go to my res earch assistants at CRCE for the time they invested toward this research. I thank them for their commitment and willingness to travel for hours to and fro study farms. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr Phatu Mashela at UL for the mentoring support he provided during my stay at the university. The Pentecostal Holiness Church in Mankweng provided me with accommodations during my stay at UL, and I thank them for their contribution. This dissertation would not have been possible without the participants I am grateful for their time and input in this st udy. I thank them for extending th eir personal lives toward the research and for making this dissertation a success. I thank them for affording me the privilege to conduct this study. I would also like to thank the land reform coordinator in Capricorn District, Mr. Mokonyama for providing essen tial information that illumina ted on the topics covered in this study. To all my friends at UF, I thank them for enriching my experien ce during my stay in Gainesville. I thank them for allowing me to sh are my life with them. To my UF mom, Debra Anderson who was there for me when I first arri ved and opened up her home and shared it with me. I thank her for giving many of us the hope to hang in there until the very end. I thank God for my parents and their encourag ement for me to take up this challenge. I thank them for believing in the va lue of education. To my siblings who always had a sister who

PAGE 6

6 would never quit school, guys, this is the END. I thank my extended family for their prayers and for loving support. I love you all. Above all, I give thanks to the Almighty God who set me on a path I would never have dreamt of in my entire life.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......12 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................15 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........15 Background to the Problem.............................................................................................16 History of Rural Livelihood Sy stems in Limpopo Province...........................................18 Agricultural Services in Former Homelands...................................................................19 Background of Study Area..............................................................................................22 Researchable Problem.....................................................................................................24 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................25 Research Objectives............................................................................................................ ....27 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....28 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..28 Assumptions.................................................................................................................... .......29 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... ..30 Definitions of Terms........................................................................................................... ....30 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........31 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................33 Defining Group Cohesiveness................................................................................................33 The Functional Perspective of Group Cohe siveness in Task Oriented Groups..............36 Issues of Interpretation on the Study of Cohesiveness....................................................40 Common Property Resources w ithin a Broad Spectrum........................................................43 The Concept of Collective Action...................................................................................46 Factors Affecting Collective Action................................................................................49 Land Reform Experiences...............................................................................................52 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........54 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................58 Research Design................................................................................................................ .....58 Addressing Validity and Reliability................................................................................60 Population and Sampling Procedure...............................................................................64

PAGE 8

8 Research Instruments.......................................................................................................65 Group environment questionnaire (GEQ)................................................................65 Questionnaires and indices.......................................................................................66 Discussion guide for group interviews.....................................................................68 Pre-testing research instruments...............................................................................69 Data Collection................................................................................................................70 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .72 Reliability of Measuring Instruments..............................................................................73 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........74 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......80 Profile of Study Farms......................................................................................................... ...80 The Genesis of Study Farms............................................................................................80 Characteristics of Study Farms........................................................................................81 Income Generating Activities and Remuneration of Farm Labor...................................82 Demographic Characteristics of Me mbers of Current Farm Groups..............................83 Group Positions and Membership Duration....................................................................84 Objective One.................................................................................................................. .......85 Structures of Governance in Farm Groups......................................................................85 Patterns of Membership, Land Use and Participation in Group Activities.....................87 Support Services Provided in Study Farms.....................................................................87 Objective Two.................................................................................................................. ......88 Perceived Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits in Study Farms.....................................88 Perceived Degree of Group Governance in Study Farms...............................................89 Perceived Degree of Group Cohesiveness in Study Farms.............................................90 Individual attracti ons to group-social.......................................................................91 Individual attracti ons to group-task..........................................................................91 Group integration-task..............................................................................................91 Group integrationsocial..........................................................................................91 Summated scores on percei ved group cohesiveness................................................91 Objective Three................................................................................................................ ......92 Correlations between Variables.......................................................................................92 Regression Analysis........................................................................................................92 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........93 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS..............................................................................................106 Structural Characteristics of Farms......................................................................................106 Membership vs. Participa tion in Group Activities........................................................106 Evolution of Governance in Study Farms.....................................................................110 Income Generating Activities in Study Farms..............................................................112 Provision of Support Services.......................................................................................113 Describing Current Farm Groups.........................................................................................116 Composition of Groups.................................................................................................116 Are Members of Current Farm Gr oups Satisfied with Benefits?..................................118 The Degree of Perceived Group Gove rnance in Current Farm Groups........................120

PAGE 9

9 The Degree of Perceive d Group Cohesiveness.............................................................123 Factors Influencing Percei ved Group Cohesiveness.....................................................126 Summary........................................................................................................................ .......127 6 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................128 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......128 Group Membership........................................................................................................128 Objective One.................................................................................................................. .....128 Structural Characteristics of Study Farms.....................................................................128 Production Activities.....................................................................................................129 Provision of Support Services.......................................................................................129 Objective Two.................................................................................................................. ....130 Satisfaction with Benefits..............................................................................................130 Group Governance.........................................................................................................131 Group Cohesiveness......................................................................................................131 Objective Three................................................................................................................ ....133 Implications................................................................................................................... .......135 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .138 Future Research.............................................................................................................138 Practitioners.................................................................................................................. .139 Policy......................................................................................................................... ....139 Summary........................................................................................................................ .......139 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL NOTICE..................................................................................................141 B CRONBACHS ALPHA COEFFICIENTS...........................................................................143 C INSTRUMENTATION........................................................................................................145 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... .......183 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................196

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Cronbachs Alpha coefficients for in dividual indices on the group environment questionnaire.................................................................................................................. ....75 3-2 Reliability analysis on the de gree of provision of support services...................................75 3-3 Reliability analysis on the de gree of satisfaction with benefits.........................................75 3-4 Reliability analysis on the degree of group governance....................................................76 3-5 Reliability analysis on in dividual items of individual attractions to the group-social.......76 3-6 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual attractions to the group-task..........76 3-7 Reliability analysis on group integration-task...................................................................77 3-8 Reliability analysis on individua l items of group integration-social.................................77 4-1 Characteristics of study farms legal enti ties, land size, regist ered beneficiaries, initial group sizes, and current group sizes........................................................................94 4-2 Income generating activities in study farms......................................................................95 4-3 Age and level of education among respondents................................................................95 4-4 Other jobs held by individual members in farm groups....................................................96 4-5 Household composition for i ndividual members in farm groups......................................96 4-6 Other sources of income for i ndividual members in farm groups.....................................96 4-7 Group positions held by indivi dual members in farm groups............................................96 4-8 Days spent on the farm each week by individual respondents..........................................97 4-9 Summary of items on the degr ee of support services provided.........................................97 4-10 Effect of low and high degree of percei ved provision of sup port services in study farms.......................................................................................................................... ........97 4-11 Summary of responses on degr ee of satisfaction with benefits.........................................98 4-12 Effect of low and high degree of perceived satisfaction with benefits..............................98

PAGE 11

11 4-13 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived satisfaction with benefits in respective farms............................................................................................................... ..98 4-14 Summary of responses on de gree of perceived group governance....................................99 4-15 Effect of low and high degree of perceived degree of group governance.........................99 4-16 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived group governance in respective farms...............................................................................................................100 4-17 Summary of responses on individual items of individual attractions to the groupsocial......................................................................................................................... .......100 4-18 Summary of responses on individual items of individual attractions to the group-task..100 4-19 Summary of responses on group integration-task............................................................101 4-20 Summary of responses on individu al items of group integration-social..........................101 4-21 Effect of low and high on the degree perceived group cohesiveness..............................101 4-22 Frequencies between low and high de gree of perceived group cohesiveness in respective farms...............................................................................................................102 4-23 Correlations between variables........................................................................................103 4-24 Regression analysis on perceived group cohesiveness....................................................103

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Provincial map of South Africa.........................................................................................32 2-1 Conceptual model of group cohesiveness..........................................................................57 3-1 Location of study fa rms in Limpopo Province..................................................................78 3-2 Distribution of study farms be tween the two municipalities.............................................79 4-1 Group development processes that led to the evolution of curr ent groups within the study farms.................................................................................................................... ...104 4-2 Patterns of land use and participation in study farms......................................................105

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PERCEIVED GROUP COHESIVENESS AMO NG PARTICIPANTS IN REDISTRIBUTED FARMS OF CAPRICORN DISTRICT, LIMPOPO PROVICE. By Tirhani Prudence Manganyi December 2007 Chair: Nick T. Place Cochair: Sandra Russo Major: Agricultural Edu cation and Communication The Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (S LAG) was implemented as part of the land reform initiative of South Africa. Through the SL AG, self-organized groups became co-owners of farmland. The purpose of this study was to explore perceived gr oup cohesiveness among participants in redistribute d SLAG farms of Capricorn Dist rict, Limpopo Province. Factors affecting group cohesiveness were also explored. A cross-sectional research desi gn was employed and data were collected at the farm level (n=13) and at the indivi dual level (n=137). At the farm level, nominal data were collected on the structural characteristics of fa rms and the processes that led to the evolution of current farm groups. Perceived degree of support services provid ed was measured as an interval variable. At the individual level (n=137), pe rceptions were measured on th e degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, a nd the degree of group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness was measured with a Likert-t ype scale adapted from Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985), and other scale response type measures were developed based on operational definitions.

PAGE 14

14 Thematic content analysis was performed in analyzing nominal data collected through group discussions. Frequencies and measures of central tendency were used to summarize data. T-tests for the equality of means and equality of variance were performed in analyzing interval data. Causal relationships between perceived gr oup cohesiveness and explanatory variables were identified through stepwise linear regression. Findings from the study revealed prevalence of high turnover rates (approximately 85%) among beneficiaries in study farms. Various patterns of participation had evolved and as a result, both individual as well as group activities were performed. Differences between farms with low and high degree of satisfaction with benefits acquired from the farms, the degree of group governance, and degree of perceive d cohesiveness were significan t. Linear regression analysis revealed that group governance and satisfaction with benefits were significant predictors of group cohesiveness. These explanatory vari ables accounted for 20% of the variance.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction The democratic government of South Africa was elected in 1994 after centuries of internal colonialism. The apartheid regime had rule d from 1948-1994 and was abolished in 1994. During apartheid, ethnic or linguistic gr oups were segregated and the a llocation of resources such as land was biased. The Natives Land Act of 1913 and other policies were used by the apartheid regime to perpetuate biased a llocations of resources. Such laws restricted ethnic groups from progressive forms of land access (Binswinger and Deininger, 1993; White Paper on Land Policy, 1998, p. 9). Current political changes endeavor to integrate racial groups into the mainstream economy, hence, the relevance of land reform. Subdivided into three segments (i.e., redist ribution, restitution, a nd tenure reform) as outlined in the White Paper on Land Policy (199 8, p. 9), the land reform movement sought to alter the precedents set by political policies of the past. Land redistribution in particular allocated farm land to labor tenants, farm workers, a nd new entrants to agri culture. Binswanger and Deininger became the proponents for a market faci litated approach toward land redistribution. Consequently, willing sellers offered land and subs equent transactions were negotiated based on market standards. Beginning in 1995, the Settle ment and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was instituted as a pilot program but was discont inued in 2001. This instrument enabled poor civilians to gain access to land through government grants. The se lection criteria of eligible beneficiaries was in part ba sed on an income ceiling of R 1,500 per month (Borras, 2003; Deininger, 1999; White Paper on Land Policy, 1 998, p. ix), whereas the total grant amount of R15,000 (US$3,300), later increased to R16,000, was allo cated to eligible beneficiaries. Thus,

PAGE 16

16 group-based acquisition of land became a feasible way to allocate government grants efficiently (NDA-NDLA, 2005, p. 30). Land redistribution was intended to alloca te 30% of land by 2015 (NDA-NDLA, n.d. p. 5). It was anticipated at the onset that the policy approach might be tweaked as the implementation progressed (Lund, 1996, p. 547). Consequently, a ne w policy approach was adopted as of February 2000 (Cousins, 1999, p. 3), and SLAG wa s replaced by the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD). SLAG had been a ssociated with inefficiencies such as slow delivery rate, poorly appraised and supported pr ojects, misguided attempts at collective agriculture, and insufficient im pact on the livelihoods of beneficiaries (NDA-NDLA, 2005, p. 30). Nevertheless, SLAG had delivered farmland to approximately 80% of beneficiaries (NDANDLA, 2005, p. 25) at the time it was discontinue d. Hall (2004, preface) repor ted that in total, only 3.1% of the 30% target amount of la nd was redistributed by 2004. SLAG focused on allocating land both for settlement as well as agricultural purposes, whereas LRAD allocates land particularly to emerging commercial farmers (H all, 2004, p 28). Hall asserted that LRAD strives to limit the size of farm groups; however, experi ences differed across pr ovinces and group-based acquisition of land had remained a viable approach to land redistribution ( pp. 29-30). Background to the Problem Binswanger and Deininger (1993) noted that la nd reform programs around the world were initiated after WWII as a way to allocate farm la nd to peasants, whereas in Sub-Saharan Africa, such initiatives can be traced back to historical events of colonization (Griffin, Khan and Ickowitz, 2002). Presently, liveli hood systems in Sub-Saharan Af rica are largely dependent upon agriculture. Based on the 1998 de velopment indicators, the World Bank (2000, p.14) reported that 67% of the population in Sub-Saharan Afri ca was predominantly rural, and agriculture continued to be the driving engine for economic growth (FAO, 2002, Section 1.4). The FAO also

PAGE 17

17 reported that the agricultural sector provided 60 % of employment in this part of the world. Interventions such as the Green Revolution ha d aimed to boost food production levels; however, agricultural development trends de monstrated a decline in agricu ltural production. Fifty-percent of the food insecure countries ar ound the world are located in this region (FAO, 1998). Failure to achieve efficiency in food produc tion led to chronic food insecu rity status (FAO, 1998) with persistent threats of famine (Devereux and Maxwell, 2003, p. 1). To date, Sub-Saharan Africa remains a world region with widespread challenges yet to be addressed. Nonetheless, South Africa pain ts a slightly different pict ure in comparison to other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. At a national level, the count ry is food secure (van Rooyen, Kirsten, Vink and Simbi, 1996, p. 33), and is a net exporter of food products (Country Studies, 2003; FAO, 2003; Schmidt, 2005), and the infrastruc ture is well-developed. However, the image generally portrayed at the nationa l level may not be true for all segments of the nation (Aliber, Kirsten, Maharajh, Nhlapo-Hlope and Nkoane 2006; Leibbrandt, Levinsohn and McCrary, 2005, p. 1; Adato, Carter and May, 2004, p. 1; Woolard, 2002, pp. 1-3). Recent reports established that the democratic dispensation continues to be ch aracterized by high levels of economic disparity (Aliber et al., 2006; Adato et al., 2004, p. 1). A more recent and emerging challenge in S outh Africa has been the HIV/AIDS pandemic which continues to erode the social fabric in the nation (UNAIDS, 2006). The prevalence of the epidemic has brought to the attention of developmen t practitioners that agriculture ceased to be a technical issue only (Jayne, Villarreal, Pinga li and Hemrich, 2004, p. 1; FAO, 2003, p. 10). Therefore, agricultural development is confront ed with complex circumstances. Although the pro-poor growth strategy to agricultural develo pment has recently been adopted and begins to untangle the multiple dimensions of poverty (D FID, 2005, p. 74; Christoplos, Ambridge and

PAGE 18

18 Zellweger, 2003, p.1; Holm n, 2003, p. 22), breaking the poverty trap faced by multitudes of citizens remains a challenge. Presently, the question of agrarian reform in South Africa remains a contentious one. By 2005, agricultures contribution to the GDP was estimated at about 3.3% and 7.2% to formal employment (GCIS, 2005, p. 125). The problem of increased rural-urban migration evokes debates that are linked to the que stion of whether agrarian reform should be continued as an appropriate strategy to foster rural development (Aliber et al ., 2006). However, a significant proportion (47%) of the population remains in ru ral areas (World Bank, 2000) and engages in agricultural production (Aliber et al., 2006). Thus, interventions to bolster the rural economy are warranted. To date, land redistribution is one of the tool s that can alter the precedents set by past laws under apartheid. Such biased policies discouraged entrepreneurial producti on activities such as sharecropping among marginalized r acial groups. Eventually, the vi tality of the rural economy was disabled (Binswanger and Deininger, 1993) Binswanger and Deininger noted that food security became a matter of concern as early as 1925. Consequently, ag ricultural production in rural areas was limited only to subsistence pr oduction with restrict ed land ownership. History of Rural Livelihood Systems in Limpopo Province Under the new political dispensation, Lim popo Province is one of the nine provincial governments (Figure 1-1). As a new government, th e province is comprised of four former Homelands or Bantustans, namely, Gazankulu, Lebowa, and Kwa-Ndebele, and the nominal independent Venda. According to the Natives Land Act of 1913, Homelands or Bantustans were reserves created to separate ethnic groups (Lahiff, 1997, p. vii). There were ten Homeland territories that were concentrated over 13% of South Africas land surface, whereas over 80% of land was ow ned by the white minority (van Rooyen et al.,

PAGE 19

19 1996, p. 33). Only 7.9% of the land surface in Homela nd territories could be used for agricultural production (Binswanger and Deininger, 1993) and access to land by households was only limited to as much as 1.3 hectares as compar ed to 1,570 hectares of land access by the white minority (Deininger and May, 2000, p. 5, Deininger, 1999). Typical in Homeland territories were unf avorable economic and social conditions. Limpopo Province had become one of the impoveri shed provinces in the country (Lahiff, 1997, p. vii). Dimensions of poverty manifested in the province and other simila r areas were typified by limited livelihood strategies (NDA, 2002, p. 25). The majority of rura l dwellers derived meager production outputs, and agriculture had become a livelihood strategy that was supplemented by remittances and wages from lo w-skilled labor (Binsw anger and Deininger, 1993). Therefore, rural dwellers had become vulnera ble to food insecurity with inadequate safety nets (NDA, 2002, p. 19). Due to urban migration of males, women had become de facto heads of households. Such trends caused family food production and self-r eliance strategies to dwindle. To date, the ramifications of previous arrangements are far-r eaching. The duality creat ed by biased political policies of the past and their eff ects continue to be felt. This s ituation is exacerbated by current market policies that disregard the poorest segmen ts of the nation (Aliber et al., 2006; Adato et al., 2004, p. 2). Agricultural Services in Former Homelands The agricultural sector of South Africa wa s built along racial lin es (White Paper on Agriculture, 1995, p. 2; van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 35) and such policies can be traced back to the early 1900s. Government polic ies on agriculture have not been scale-neutral; and commercial agriculture was enriched at th e expense of subsistence produ ction. Presently, the government seeks to strike a balance and mitigate the e ffects of economic biases on the rural poor.

PAGE 20

20 Government services such as extension have not been immune to these effects and the extension service continues to st ruggle in an attempt to adapt to current circumstances. The legacies of the past have create d the reality of the present day. Inasmuch as Homeland territories were marginalized to a great extent, extension services were also limited. Extension operated under working conditions that were not conducive to optimal performance (Machete and Mollel, 1999, p. 340). Primarily, colleges of agriculture in former Homeland territories provided training for extension officers (White Paper on Educatio n, 1995), who then became public servants in Homeland territories. Extension officers with eith er high school or college diplomas provided services to clients whose interest in farmi ng had dwindled due to off-farm employment opportunities. Furthermore, the education system in agricultural colleges was similar to that offered to vocational teachers (Douglas, 2005), and trainees were hardly pr epared for real world experiences. Consequently, lack of appropriate farmer support services became the norm (White Paper on Agriculture, 1995, p. 20). Extension services in the past did not foster a culture of colla borating with institutions such as universities, research and non-governmental organizations (Machete and Mollel, 1999, p. 343; van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 31). Therefore, it can be anticipated that the shift toward embracing rural populations into th e mainstream is yet an enormous challenge for the current extension system. It has previously been observed that extension officers in Limpopo Province needed more educational development and improved worki ng conditions (Bruening et al., 2002). At the same time, extension continues in recent years to search for an appropriate strategy to suit diverse audiences (Duvel, 2004). Also, calls to stre ngthen the role of the ex tension service within land redistribution have been raised (Aliber, 2003; Deininger, 1999).

PAGE 21

21 Tearing down the walls of methodol ogical influences of the past is yet another challenge. The purposive transfer of skills and informa tion (Nagel, 1997) based on technology transfer (T&T) had become the sine qua non of the extension framework. However, the impact achieved from years of investments in agricultural develo pment did not yield substantial results. Hence, development practitioners began to ponder in search for new ways to address such concerns (Collinson, 2000, p. 3; Whyte, 1986, p. 1), and the Farming Systems Research and Extension approach (FSR-E) was birthed out of such efforts. According to Collinson, FSR is a methodology that helps researchers to gain a be tter understanding of the technology development process particularly by involving the intende d end users of technology (p. 1). The FSR-E approach began to shed insight s regarding the limita tions of technology adoption among agrarian societies. As a result, agricultural development be gan to make a shift. Perhaps efforts to reinforce FSR-E in South Africa dwindled over th e time (van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 32). Agricultural research and development (R&D) evolved from a top-dow n approach to being more perceptive toward the targ eted end-users of technology. Part icipatory processes facilitate the provision of services that are user-oriented (Duvel, 1996; Graf orth and Jones, 1997). In South Africa, provision of extension services has b een called to embrace new approaches to service delivery (White Paper on Agriculture, 1995, p. 20). Apart from educational services, in 2004 th e government began to provide financial assistance to emerging farmers in particular. The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program (CASP) (NDA-DLA, 2005, p. 45; NDA, 2004, p. 1) aimed to allocate 70% of the budget to infrastructure support for redistri buted farms. However, skeptics have expressed that CASP may be short-lived like the Broadening Access to Agri culture Thrust initiativ e (BATAT) of the 1990s (Development Report, 2005, p. 74). Therefore, the impact made by CASP remains to be seen.

PAGE 22

22 Background of Study Area Limpopo Province is the only province with the numerous former Homelands consolidated under one rubric. In 1994, the pr ovince was identified as one of the poorest in the country (Limpopo Growth and Development Strategy, 2005, p. 3). Recently, the province became the fastest growing economy in the country (Limpo po Growth and Development Strategy, p. 12). Limpopo Province generated about 6.5% of the na tional GDP in 2002 (Statistics South Africa, 2003, p. 53). Notably, three sectors, including mi ning, agriculture and tourism have been identified as niche economic avenues. Mining and quarrying industries in the province account for the largest contribution (24 %) to the provincial economy, wh ereas agriculture contributed about 3% (Statistics South Africa, 2003, p. 62). According to the National Department of Agri culture and Statistics South Africa (2005) approximately 50% of farming in Limpopo was on a s ubsistence basis. Out of the six districts in the province, Vhembe had the largest proportion of households (approximately 77%) engaged in agricultural production (Provide 2005, p. 6). Subsistence farm ing was commonly centered on cattle husbandry and cropping syst ems (FAO, 2004). Mixe d crop-livestock systems are generally practiced in semi-arid zone s (Tapson, 1996, p. 265). The FAO noted that mixed farming production enterprises in the province were ty pical. Subsistence farmers generally operated communal land with no formal ownership (Lahi ff, 1997, p. xvi), whereas contiguous land parcels may have been fragmented into smaller plots. Maize is the main crop of Limpopo Province a nd is generally cultivated under dryland conditions dependent on rain (FAO, 2004). Th e Rural Survey of 1997 established that the majority of rural populations are engaged in agri cultural practices for food production rather than for trading. However, emerging commercial fa rming practices are increasingly becoming common (FAO, 2004).

PAGE 23

23 Spatially, the provi nce covers 123,910 km2 representing approximately 10% of the countrys land surface (1 219 912 km2). The lowveld plains are va st and a range of mountains rises from the highland plateau in the south and center of the province (Britannica, n.d.). The Drakensberg mountain escarpment divides the provi nce between low and high rainfall areas. The mixed bushveld covers a great part of the provi nce to the west and rainfall ranges between 350650mm, whereas the north-easte rn mountain grassland has ra infall ranging from 700-1100 mm (Low and Rebelo, 1996, pp. 26-46). The mean annual rainfall in the province is estimated at 527 mm. Rainfall patterns are erratic and unimoda l occurring over the summer season (October through April). The end of the ra iny season also marks the beginni ng of dry winter months with minimal vegetation for livestock consumption. Ther efore, the quality and quantity of livestock fodder fluctuates greatly. The climate in the province is subdivided into two seasons, summer and winter. The temperatures during summer mont hs are generally warm, and day temperatures may exceed 40C in some parts of the province (FAO, 2004). Th e winters are usually m ild, but temperatures may fall below 0 C. The mean minimum daily te mperature in most areas lies between 18-22 C in the summer and 5-10 C in the winter. According to the farm plans perused, study farm s in Molemole Municipa lity and two of the farms in Polokwane (i.e., Monyamane and Lwal a le Meetse) were located along the boundary between the Polokwane plateau and the lowvel d. These farms were located in a mountainous area with elevations ranging between 1200m above sea level a nd valleys of 900m above sea level. The mean annual rainfall ranges from 600 to 800mm, and the natural vegetation occurring in this part of the province is classified as sour mixed bushveld. Study farms in Polokwane Municipality are situated in the dry highveld with averag e rainfall between 350-400mm. The

PAGE 24

24 topography in Polokwane is flat wi th gentle slopes that may requi re soil conservation structures in case soil erosion occurs. Researchable Problem South Africa is undergoing a complex and formidable change at the present time. This transition coincides with cha nge occurring throughout the worl d. Changes around the world are political, economic, technological, environmental and social, and continue to evolve (Chambers, 1997, p. 3). Rivera and Cary (1997) concur and assert that the 1980s marked the turning point in the provision of public services due to structur al and adjustment progr ams (SAPs) introduced by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Developing countries in particular were encouraged to adopt such policy initiatives. Th ese policies encompassed the aspects of market liberalization, privatization and decentralization (Razavi, 2005, p. ix ). However, the change in the macroeconomy resulted in disruptive social consequences marked by rising levels of social inequality and marginali zation (Razavi, 2005, p. 2). In contrast to other parts of the world, SAPs were implemented to a limited scale in South Africa, and the programs were not donor initia ted (van Rooyen et al., 1996, p. 1). The country witnessed the fall of the hegem onic apartheid regime, and conse quently continued to socially construct itself through various po licy initiatives. This transiti on brings with it new opportunities as well as challenges, and prevalent in this pro cess are the throes of tr ansformation and change. The transformation is marked by massive pol icy experimentation, whereas the quest to seek pathways based on context-sp ecific experiences is indispensa ble. Of particular importance, the land policy in the co untry continues to be tweaked and to evolve, and empirically generated evidence should continue to inform policy formulation in the area. Presently, one of the measures used to gauge the success of implementation pro cesses is the pace at which farmland is allocated. However, inasmuch as administrative processes are crucial to ensure speedy delivery of land,

PAGE 25

25 experiences beyond land acquisition have even greater ramifications. Therefore, this study explores the degree to which members of farm gr oups have continued their participation in the study farms, and also explores the factor s influencing continued participation. The present study suggests that despite resource endowments in redistributed farms, aspects of group processes and the extent to wh ich members of farm groups benefit largely dictate the extent to which members of farm gr oups will continue their participation. This study does not intend to underscore the importance of other factors in agricultural pr oduction. Quiggin (1995) asserted that agricultural production is highly dependent upon factors that are beyond the control of the farmers and such include biolog ical and climatic conditions. Beyond that, whether farmers can sell their produce in the market, let alone meet the quality standards required by the market is yet another factor. Byrnes (2003, p. 209) brings our attention to the importance of providing support services in order for farmers to increase production and possibly generate income. Furthermore, Aliber (2003) and Deini nger (1999) pointed out the need to provide extension services in redistributed farms, and coordination between relevant government departments should be improved. Challenges faci ng redistributed farms cu t across all spheres. Nonetheless, the interest of this study is centered on the c ohesiveness of the groups in study farms. The limitations associated with SLAG ar e clearly outlined (NDA-DLA, 2005, p. 30). Efforts to evaluate the performance of land redi stribution to date are co mmendable, but there is need to conduct research that engages sc holarship and promotes dialogue among scholars regarding pertinent issues on land redistribution. Purpose of the Study As a nation in its democratic infancy, it is questionable if South Africa will use its development programs to create a new identity. The country is undergoing a process of social

PAGE 26

26 construction, whereby the integration of the ru ral poor into the mainst ream economy remains a challenge. The country presently is experienci ng a trial and error environment of policy changes on a massive scale. One of the most pressing issues confronting the nation is dismantling the legacies of the past by reduc ing the socio-economic gap between different segments of the nation. Through continued enga gement, beneficiaries of land redistribution could potentially acquire soci ally desirable benefits. The current LRAD is expected to speed up th e delivery of land and alter land ownership patterns. It is imperative, however, to devote attention to the proce sses that unfold beyond land acquisition. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that beneficiaries in redistributed farms are faced with challenges and that such difficulties can be traced back to the discrepancies of policy formulation (Borrass, 2003; Dein inger and May, 2000, Deininger, 1999). An understanding of how farm groups evolve over time gives a point of departure toward determining the behavioral intent of current gr oup members to continue their participation. Evidence of turnover in redistributed farm s has been reported in previous studies (McCuster, 2004). However, there has been a temptation to assess su ccess stories based on turnover rates (NDA-NDLA, 2005, p. 30) This study postulates that current farm groups can be viewed as a cohort that can offer insightful lesso ns for other redistribution programs. This study also posits that turnover rate is an inadequate assessment, ra ther an indication of natural processes that are inhere nt in the process of group developm ent. Therefore, current farm groups may be understood on the basis of group development processes that occur over time. This study illustrates that the formation of groups cannot be limited to a single event, but to a series of events that determine continued engagement by members in groups (Tuckman, 1965). This study further explores important featur es of group processes such as governance of

PAGE 27

27 information and rules-in-use, satisfaction with benefits, importance of benefits acquired, to mention a few. The influence of these processes on continued their partic ipation in farm groups is explored. This study suggests that strategic interactions am ong group members as well as the degree to which members of farm groups benefit are important determinan ts of the intent to remain in farm groups. An area that remains largely untapped in redist ributed farms is that of groups research. Rather than relying on speculati ons, group cohesiveness is a promis ing tool that lends itself to data gathering at various stages of group develo pment. This exploratory study endeavors to lay the foundation and provoke scholarship in the area of groups research and the formation of groups. Such investigations could begin to eluc idate the processes that are inherent in the formation of groups. In the grand scheme of things, efforts by the South African government to scale up production activities of the farms may not achieve much if the conditions of farms are not conducive for the performance of related farm tasks. Although the current approach to land redistribution (LRAD) discourages group-based acquisition of farm land, Hall (2004, p. 29-30) found out with a few exceptions that group size s under LRAD were comparable with those of SLAG. Therefore, understanding perceived grou p cohesiveness among members of farm groups is imperative. Research Objectives To describe perceptions on gr oup development processes that led to the evolution of current farm groups and the degree of support services provided. To describe characteristics of individual group members, perceptions on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, and group cohesiveness. To describe the variance expl ained by specific factors on th e influence of perceived group cohesiveness among group members.

PAGE 28

28 Research Questions What are the processes that led to the evolut ion of current farm groups, and the degree to which support services are provided? What is the degree of satisfaction with be nefits, degree of gro up governance, and group cohesiveness? What are the factors influenci ng perceived group cohesiveness? Significance of the Study Theoretically, redistributed farms can be cl assified under the rubric of common property resources (CPRs) and collective action (CA) The CPRs are described based on their characteristics of co-ownership, co-usage, ope n access, and subtractability (Myatt and Wallace, 2003, 2004; Theesfeld, 2004; Tuomel, 2003; Jodh a, 1986; Hardin, 1968). Of particular importance, exclusion from usage in CPRs ma y be difficult to enforce, whereas co-usage generally leads to the depletion of CPRs. Collective action has been studied from a wide array of disciplines. However, there has been a tempta tion to extrapolate and ge neralize findings from specific contexts (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003). A ttempts to study group related variables in redistributed farms has been limited. Thus, continue d efforts to generate empirical evidence from such contexts are warranted. In the case of redistributed farms, ownership is based on property ri ghts, whereas access is limited only to those with officially recognizable status as defined fo r example by the CPA Act (1996). Therefore, the theory of CA has limitations in relation to redistributed farms. Research on farmers organizations in par ticular has been limited and did not result in an organized body of knowledge (Byrnes, 1997, p. 211). The curre nt study focuses on the construct of group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness is recognized as th e most studied small group construct (Bettenhausen, 1991). Because the formation of gr oups is pervasive across spheres of society,

PAGE 29

29 deriving a uniform definition of group cohesive ness has been a challenge (Chang and Bordia, 2001, Friedkin, 2004). Carron (1982) de fined group cohesiveness as the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals a nd objectives, whereas Festinger (1950) defined cohesiveness as t he resultant of all forces act ing on members to remain in a group. The latter definition suggest s that cohesiveness is an outc ome variable. Hence, this study treats cohesiveness as an outcome variable. Group cohesiveness is a property of the group but it is manifest ed at the individual level (van Berger and Koekebakker, 1959). As a resu lt, perceptions of indi vidual group members are measured at the individual level. However, gr oups generally operate under systems that are complex, adaptive and dynamic (M cGrath, Arrow and Berdahl, 2000). Groups should be located within antecedent conditions that tend to infl uence continued participation in group activities (Friedkin, 2004). Therefore, research designs an d methodologies that supp ort exploratory studies of complex group structures should be identified and amalgamated. Earlier research on group cohesiveness has been faced with methodological challenges, and researchers have grappled with determining whether group cohesiveness is an antecedent or consequence (Chang and Bordia, 2001). Other me thodological challenges on the construct stem from its multidimensional nature (Chang a nd Bordia, 2001; Dyaram and Kamalanabhan, 2005; Carron et al., 1985). This study considers group cohe siveness as a latent construct with multiple indicators (Bollen and Hoyle, 1990), and factors influencing group cohesiveness are described. Assumptions This study considered the individuals presen t on the farms at the time of the study as members of farm groups. Group members participated in th e study voluntarily. This study further assumed that participation in group act ivities on the farms implied some degree of perceived group cohesiveness. It was assumed that participation in group activities resulted in

PAGE 30

30 acquisition of benefits by group members. Furthe rmore, an assumption was made that farm groups were structured based on rules and regulat ions that govern them. The need for support services, production inputs as well as access to the market was also assumed. Limitations of the Study This study was conducted in Ca pricorn District, one of th e six districts of Limpopo Province. Due to the prevalence of high turnover rates in redistributed farms, the current study treated study farms (n=13) as a population. Th is limits generalizability of the study findings. Also, ongoing activities on the farm s included both individual as well as collective activities. Therefore, the boundary of a group is not clearly defined. Respondents participated in the study voluntarily, and participation was li mited to those present on the farms at the time of the study. The distance from the Univer sity of Limpopo where the re searcher was based did not permit frequent interaction with respondents. Gaining entrance to the farms and building rapport was also a challenge for the re searcher. And, the financial cost s of conducting the study were great due to spatial distributions of farms. The researcher had spent some time in the United States; therefore, slight cultural differences were anticipated. Fu rthermore, it was anticipated th at language might be a slight obstacle because of the time of absence of the researcher from South Africa. However, review sessions held with research assistants helped to clarify the meaning a nd interpretation of study questions in the local language of Sepedi. Definitions of Terms Group cohesiveness The tendency of a group to stick together. Communal Property Associations (CPAs) Juristic persons, who acquire, hold and manage property on the basis of a written constitution. Beneficiaries Individuals who received government grants and became co-owners of redistributed farmland.

PAGE 31

31 Extension service Provision of educationa l entitlements to farming communities by the government. Homelands territories Territori es that were created in orde r to segregate ethnic groups as specified by the Natives Land Act of 1913. LRAD Land Redistribution for Agricultural Deve lopment. This is a market-assisted program, and beneficiaries are provided with matched gr ants to qualify for land acquisition. This program focuses particularly on emerging farmers. Livelihood systems A composite of all activitie s that a household can produce and reproduce. Natives Land Act of 1913 Laws that restrict ed ethnic groups from progressive forms of agricultural production. This law al so resulted in the creation et hnic reserves for residential purposes. SLAG Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant. SLAG was facilitated through allocation of government grants to eligible households. Benefici aries of grants were registered in the same government database kept on the housing subsidy, and beneficiaries could not benefit from both. This program is market-assisted and its focus was on access to land. Subsistence farming Farming for the purposes of home consumption and sale in case of surplus produce. Summary This chapter introduced the context of agricu ltural and rural development in South Africa and Limpopo Province. The basis of the land redistribution based on political policie s of the past was highlighted. The purpose and significance of the study were presented and the assumptions that were made by the researcher and limitations that threatened the study were outlined. The following chapter presents the th eoretical and the conceptual fr ameworks that underpinned the study.

PAGE 32

32 Figure 1-1 Provincial map of South Africa

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter presents a review of the literat ure. It begins by intr oducing the construct of group cohesiveness. Both empirical and theo retical advancements in the study of group cohesiveness are presented. The concept of co mmon property resources and collective action is discussed. The chapter concludes by hi ghlighting land reform experiences. Defining Group Cohesiveness Groups are pervasive across c ontexts and they are the sine qua non in the study of cohesiveness. Scholarship in the study of cohe siveness, however, has been well grounded in the disciplines of sociology and social psychology (Dyaram and Kamalanabhan, 2005; Friedkin, 2004; Dion, 2000). Festinger et al. (1950) laid the groundbreaking work and championed the study of group cohesion from a sociological persp ective. The work by Festinger and colleagues became prominent and continues to influence co ntemporary work in the area. Festinger and colleagues defined cohesiveness as the total forces acting on pe ople to remain in a group (p. 164). This definition was centered on the degr ee to which a group mediates goals for its members and its resultant attractiveness to the memb ers. According to Festi nger et al., there are factors that determine whether a group lives or dies at the time a group forms. Groups are developed through membership, as well as the activities they engage in. Festinger and his colleagues saw groups in a functional way. Therefore, groups are conceptu alized in terms of their pur poses to achieve some output through a process that entails engagement in the pe rformance of tasks. However, it must be noted that membership in a group is inspired by forces such as individual needs, whereas the nature of the task determines the level of cohesivene ss in any particular group. These factors are antecedent to cohesion (Carron, 1980, p. 240), and cohesion becomes relative depending on the

PAGE 34

34 goals and tasks of a group (Dion, 2000). Accordi ng to English, Griffith and Steelman (2004), types of tasks performed are divided into divi sible and unitary tasks. English and colleagues asserted that divisible tasks have been described as those where it is feasible to further divide the labor, and unitary tasks are those wher e a division of labor is not feasible. Enoch and McLemore (1967) built upon Festinge r and others and defined cohesion as the attraction to the group which was assumed to be comprised of intrinsic (socio-emotional) attraction and instrumental (means and source) attraction. Therefore, two dimensions of cohesiveness notably, social a nd task were identified. The bidi mensionality of cohesiveness is consistent with the Festinger et al. view that he ld that a group can be a source of rewards as well as means of rewards (Carron, 1982). Carron et al. (2004) and Carron (1982) indicated that the concept of bidimensionality is based on processes associated with the development of social relationships and processes associated with th e achievement of group objectives. As a result, cohesion-as-attraction-to-group pe rspective was also endorsed by others such as Bakeman and Helmreich (1975). Dion (2000) asserts that Festi nger and colleagues perspectiv e has been altered, though in some subtle ways. Dion claimed that the shif t has been in the form of recognizing that cohesiveness is not only the precursor (i.e ., field of forces) but it was discovered that cohesiveness was also consequential; thus, bi nding members of a group together. Therefore, forces acting on individual members were then termed attractions to the group However, a caveat with the term attraction has been that there was a tende ncy to confuse it with cohesion leading to erroneous explanations (Enoch and McLemore, 1967). Carron (1982) suggested that the measure of cohesion based upon attraction fail ed to explain cohesiveness in situations characterized by negative effect.

PAGE 35

35 Carron et al. (1985) defi ned cohesion as a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives It is important to note that Carron and associates located the meaning of cohesiveness within the social context of a group. Meanwhile, Mullen and Copper (1994) adapted Festingers (1950) defini tion of cohesiveness as the resultant of all forces acting on members to remain in a group Therefore, there has been a shift to the view of cohesiveness as an outcome variable (Friedkin, 2004). The study of cohesiveness advanced over time and Carron et al. (1985) was among others who contributed to this advancement. These au thors conceptualized cohesiveness based on two predominant types of cognitions. Group integration (GI) refers to the ind ividuals perceptions about the closeness, similarity, and bonding within the group as a whole. Individual attractions (AT) to the group, represents th e individuals perceptions about personal motivations acting to retain them in the group. The are four manifestat ions of cohesion: group in tegrationtask (GI-T), group integrationsocial (GI-S), in dividual attractions to the groupt ask (ATG-T), and individual attractions to the groupsocial (ATG-S). The conceptual framework of group cohesiveness is presented in Figure 2-1. The meta-analysis condu cted by Dion (2000) on c ohesiveness concluded that task and social dimensions were central to a multidimensional view of cohesion and that this view reflected consensus among researchers. Conceptually, cohesiveness is a property of the group but it is manifested at the individual level in attractions to the group, to its members, to its tasks and goals (Carron et al., 2003; Dion, 2000; van Bergen and Koekebakker, 1959). Given th eir viewpoints, the work by Festinger et al. (1950) became contentious. Carron (1980, p. 235) identif ied two criticisms that were associated with Festinger and colleagues. One criticism was c oncerned with using an individual as a unit of

PAGE 36

36 reference rather than the group. Another critic ism is based on the complexity of operational definitions based on the term total field of all forces. Carron also indicated that arguments were also centered on interper sonal attraction to a group as be ing an inadequate measure of cohesiveness. Critiques against Festinger and colleagues were not meant to discredit the importance of interpersonal relationships. A point of view on the role of inte rpersonal attraction is emphatic and has been put forward by Katz, Lazer, Arrow, and Contractor (2004). Katz and associates asserted that relationships betw een individuals are important but relationships to everybody else within the group are imperative because they will largely determine the flow of information and resources. Wittenbaum et al. (2004) claimed that the flow of information within a group either contributes to or inhi bits group decision-making and problem-s olving effectiveness. Therefore, group members should be informed in order to cont ribute to decision-making as well as problemsolving processes. It has been agued that task oriented gr oups are likely to put more emphasis on the completion of the task than interpersonal attraction (Anderson, 1975). Shared beliefs among group members can be expected to be str onger in groups with more complex task interdependence (Carron et al., 2003). However, it has been suggested th at overt behavior may not be consistent with the behavioral intent (be liefs, attitudes, etc.) of individual members (Alavi and McCormick, 2004). Group cohesiveness has been defined from va rious perspectives. The following section presents group cohesiveness from the functional perspective. The Functional Perspective of Group Co hesiveness in Task Oriented Groups The functional perspective of groups is conc erned with the purpose for which groups are formed (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Cartwright and Zander (1968, pp. 53-56) outlined conditions

PAGE 37

37 that lead to the formation of groups. Cartwright and Zander diffe rentiated between groups that are formed deliberately, formed spontaneously, as well as those that are fo rmed due to external designation. Groups that are formed deliberately are further subdivided to include work groups (Table 2-1). Accordingly, work groups are create d to perform tasks more efficiently through the pooling and coordination of the be havior and resources of a colle ction of individuals. However, group formation precedes developmental stages th at determine the life span of a group. The development cycle of groups is influenced by different factors (Chang and Bordia, 2001). Tuckman (1965) identified different stages in the group development process. These stages include forming, storming, norming, a nd performing. According to Tuckman, groups identify the boundaries of both interpersonal and task behaviors at the forming stage, whereas storming is characterized by conf lict and polarization around interp ersonal issues with emotional response in the task sphere. These behaviors are symbolic of the resist ance to group influence and task requirements. During norming, cohesive ness develops, as new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted, at the performing stage, th e interpersonal structure becomes the tool of task activities. At the performing level, role s become flexible and functional and the group energy is channeled to the task. St ructural issues are resolved at the final stage and the structure then becomes supportive of task performan ce. Through these stages, the group becomes a functional instrument for deali ng with the task, and the group overcomes interpersonal problems (Tuckman, 1965). Given the group development process, groups co uld either gain resilience or they may become wobbly and eventually fail. Therefore, the longevity of group life span will determine whether a group could foster an environment for vi able performance to take place or not. Groups evolve, and the stage of development reached in a group will determine in la rge part the extent to

PAGE 38

38 which members of groups continue their part icipation. Given the multidimensional nature of cohesiveness, the development cycle of the gr oup tends to dictate the type of cohesiveness predominant along the continuum (Carron, 1982). Carron (1980, p. 234) asserted that the level of cohesiveness c ould be low, but there cannot be zero cohesiveness because groups would cease to exist. Carron (1980, p. 233) defined a group as characterized by purposive interaction in goal directed and interpersonal behavior. The culture that evolves in a group has the potential to influenc e the attitudes, and the behavior, whereas the objectives of the group will dictate the kinds of activities in which members engage. Alavi and McCormick (2004) argued that cohe sive groups generally encourage a positive atmosphere, free from personal squabbles, and as a result, members can benefit from the group, whereas cooperation and overall performan ce is improved. Conversely, Friedkin (2004) indicated that groups are cohesive when gr oup-level conditions produce positive membership attitudes and behaviors and when group members interpersonal inte ractions operate to maintain group-level conditions. Although Festinger and associates had cham pioned the conceptualization of group cohesiveness based on interpersonal attraction in 1950, calls to revisit this view were made. Another divisive concept in the study of gr oup cohesiveness is the association between cohesiveness and performance in task-oriente d groups. Findings on this phenomenon have been inconclusive (Carron, 1980, p. 245). Carron et al. (2004) asserted that the association between cohesion and performance is la rgely based on assumptions. Ho wever, Carron and colleagues indicated that this assumption inspires the ever-increasing attempt to reveal empirical evidence, particularly in psychological di sciplines. On the other hand, ther e seems to have been a general

PAGE 39

39 consensus on the proposition that stipulated th at the effect of cohesion on performance is plausible, but the opposite may not be true (Bakeman and Helmreich, 1975). The degree of interaction required; however, by the group for successful performance has been noted previously as imperative to the c ohesive-performance effect (Mullen and Copper, 1994). To a varying degree, meta-analysis revealed a positive relationship between cohesiveness and performance (Evans and Dion, 1991; Mullen and Copper, 1994). However, Dyaram and Kamalanabhan (2005) claimed that such meta-ana lyses were confronted with conceptual and methodological problems. As a result, the c onfusion concerning the relationship between cohesiveness and performance seems to have persisted. Mullen and Copper (1994) presen ted that a stronger cohesive ness-performance effect in groups required a greater degr ee of interaction, an d consequently, coordination among group members would be improved and the smooth ope ration of the group as a system would be enhanced. Mullen and Copper observed task co hesion as the better predictor of task performance. Group size was also found to influe nce the level of perf ormance as well as cohesiveness of groups (Mullen and Copper, 1994). As a result, it was hypothesized that cohesiveness-performance relationship is stronger in smaller groups and weaker in larger groups. Bettenhausen (1991) also noted that group size is a contex t variable that was consistently shown to affect group processes and outcomes. On th e contrary, group size was found to be inversely related to perceptions of cohe sion in exercise classes (Carr on and Spink, 1995). Nevertheless, Bettenhausen observed that group cohesion is a critical predic tor of group behavior and is reflected through evidence that revealed that cohesiveness resulted in improved performance, increased satisfaction, and lower turnover. Eviden tly, cohesiveness can be antecedent in relation to task performance.

PAGE 40

40 Hackman (1990, pp. 6-7) identified three dimensi ons that contributed to the effectiveness of groups, particularly in or ganizational groups. These include the degree to which groups productive output meets the standards of quantity quality, and timeliness; the degree to which the process of carrying out work enhances the capability of members to work together interdependently in the future, and the degree to which the groups experience contributes to the development of others. In agriculture, productivi ty is largely determin ed by factors that are beyond the control of farmers and these include both climatic and biological conditions (Quiggin, 1995), whereas access to markets is an important factor. The ability of farmers to produce in a timely manner and meet the quality and quantity of the output required for the market is yet another important factor. The functional perspective of group cohesiveness is centered on the performance of related tasks. Both theoretical and met hodological considerations are pres ented in the following section. Issues of Interpretation on the Study of Cohesiveness Contradictions in the study of cohesiveness-performance re lationship are theoretical in nature, and other concerns stem from measurement. Chang and Bordia (2001) asserted that attempts to study the cohesion-performance allian ce could not establish a systematic relationship. In contrast, recent studies based on meta-ana lyses (Evans and Dion, 1991; Dion, 2000; Mullen and Copper, 1994) supported a hypothesis that a relationship exists between cohesiveness and performance. These studies also revealed that the interface between cohesiveness and performance was due to the commitment to the task cohesion rather than to interpersonal attraction. A caveat with the meta-analyses is th at they should be interp reted with great care because neither of the studies went beyond central tendency to establish the relationship between cohesiveness and performance (Chang and Bo rdia, 2001). Therefore, although meta-analyses have been instrumental, more attention should be devoted toward standardiz ation of procedures.

PAGE 41

41 Small group research has been criticized for over reliance on the positivist epistemology (McGrath et al., 2000), whereas cohesiveness ha s been studied largely through experimental designs and correlational studies. It has been observed that expe rimental studies tend to yield weaker cohesiveness-performance effect, wherea s correlational studies conducted under natural settings yield better re sults (Mullen and Copper, 1994). Mull en and Copper assert that weak results from experiments may be attributed to the removal of the impact of performance on cohesiveness in the cohesiveness-performance eff ect. Mullen and Copper further claimed that the correlational stance attempts to de termine the direction of the influence, whereas the conditions under which experiments are conducted make th is approach artificia l by controlling for cohesiveness and gauging changes in subsequent performance. Reasons for the lack of consistency in the study of the associati on between cohesiveness and performance can be attributed to the pe rvasive nature of gr oups. Hackman (1990, p. 3) suggested that the omnipresence of groups is ac tually problematic in the study of groups. Most recently, Chang and Bordia (2001) concurred by indicating that the cohesiveness-performance phenomenon is generally studied in contexts th at are highly variable. Landers and Luschen (1974) identified the degree of in teraction required by th e demands of the task. Thus, the lack of consensus in the task-performance association coul d be attributed to the task dimension of cohesiveness. This dimension appears to be obfus cated by the failure to differentiate between coacting and interacting groups. Inte raction refers to the interdep endence of group members, i.e., combining skills of individual members through an interdependent action. On the other hand, coacting refers to a summation of individual cont ributions; therefore low interdependence may not be satisfied (Landers and Luschen, 1974).

PAGE 42

42 Other views pointed out that th e lack of coherence in the study of cohesiveness may be traced back to its roots group dynamics (Poole, Hollingshead, McGrath, Moreland, and Rohrbaugh, 2004). Poole et al. assert ed that students of group dynamics have grappled to fill the gap for a long time. Poole and colleagues further indicated that the disc onnect between students of groups across disciplines is an area that needs to be addressed. The proliferation of definitions of cohesiveness causes concern in relation to measurement (Chang and Bordia, 2001; Friedkin, 2004). Bettenhausen (1991) also noted that student s of cohesiveness are f aced with the difficulty of defining, operationalizing, meas uring, and experimentally mani pulating cohesiveness. Most importantly, from a functional pers pective, groups are manifested in various contexts and are influenced by different factors. Therefore, ope rational definitions of variables within specific contexts should become an important part of the study. Despite the disenchantment expressed by many students of cohesiveness, many have tended to agree on the multidimensionality of cohesion. Therefore, this consensus has given a point of departure toward a common definition and measurement (Chang and Bordia, 2001). On th e contrary, Friedkin (2 004) claimed that the multidimensional approach to cohesiveness did not address the problem of integrating the individual and group level at which cohesivene ss has been defined. Furthermore, Friedkin asserted that the confusion has b een indicative of the complexity involved in reciprocally linked individual-level and gr oup-level phenomenon. Another area of contention in the study of cohesion-performance has been the precedence set by Festinger et al. (1950). Fe stinger and colleagues aggregated individual data in order to derive a group measure. Carron (1982) noted that the use of the average (mean) may not be reliable, whereas the mode and the median may be better measures of central tendency under specific circumstances. Carron further highlighted that the mean lacks resilience, and may be

PAGE 43

43 misleading because two groups could have the sa me mean, yet groups may be different. Recent studies (Burke et al., 2005; Di on, 2000) proposed other mechanisms that can ease the tension in this regard. Data aggregation is consid ered acceptable when there is variation within groups as well as between groups (analysis of variance-ANOVA). Th e current study compares the mean (T-test) to determine the difference between cases of low and high degree of cohesiveness, therefore, variability is maintained. The standard deviation is also used in this study as a measure of variability. Studying the cohesiveness-performance relati onship has also been restrained by the inability to employ longitudinal study designs (Carron, 1982). Carron asserts it was difficult to identify with confidence the level of relations hip to be referred to as strong because no research design can take that into account b ecause of the difficulty in representing initial experiences of groups. The current study describes initial experiences of farm groups through group discussions and by identifying emerging th emes. Data reduction procedures have also been deemed undesirable because the practice di scards cases that display low levels of cohesiveness (Carron et al., 2003) Carron and colleagues disputed this practice and argue that it tends to increase the likelihood of committing Type II error. The preceding sections discussed the theo retical basis of group cohesiveness. Contributions made to the study of this cons truct over the time and the discrepancies were identified. The following discusses the concept of common property resources. Common Property Resources within a Broad Spectrum Extensive research has been conducted in the area of common prope rty resources (CPRs) and collective action (CA). Agrawal (2001) acknowle dged that students from various disciplines of scholarship contribute to the burgeoning literature, a nd the fields of stu dy include but are not limited to anthropology, economics, environment, political science, and rural sociology, among

PAGE 44

44 others. Therefore, theoretical simulations on th e phenomenon cut across many fields of inquiry. The diversity of scholarship in this area is also reflective of the wide range of CPRs. However, Poteete and Ostrom (2003, p. 14) observed that students in th e area tend to extrapolate and attempt to generalize findings. Historically, CPRs have been categorized into two subdivisions, thos e that are naturally evolving as well as those that are man-made (Tuomel, 2003; Jodha, 1986). Generally, natural CPRs are differentiated based on their characteris tic of subtractability and where exclusion may be difficult to enforce (Myatt and Wallace, 2003, 2004). Subtractability is based on resources becoming depleted from usage by a great number of individuals without e ffective property right regimes. Therefore, natural CPRs tend to opera te on the notion of open access and exclusive property rights do not exist (Hardin, 1968). Co-use rs of natural resources could derive some benefits from the use of such resources. And benefits that accrue to co-users might be in the form of either income or any other personal gain. Based on this qual ity of CPRs, natural resources can be referred to as common pool resources. In reference to man-made CPRs, Quiggin (1995 ) proposed that CPRs such as agricultural cooperatives may be seen as a m eans to capture economies of scal e. A salient characteristic of man-made CPRs has been the prominence of property ownership, thereby having made them inaccessible to certain segm ents of the population. Efficiency based on agricultural production is an important element in CPRs. Further, bene fits accrued to individual members according to portions of individual co ntributions. Byrnes (1997, p. 211) not ed that farmers organizations often have help create demand for and the suppl y of agricultural support institutions that effectively improved technology utilization in small farmer agricultural production.

PAGE 45

45 Byrnes asserted that research on farmers or ganizations has not resulted in an organized body of knowledge (p. 211). And the emphasi s on the access of production inputs may be misleading. Quiggin is among the few scholars w ho recognized that agri cultural production is highly dependent upon other factors. Quiggin further observed that elements of production (land, labor and capital) determine, in large part, the probabi lity of whether an output can be derived. Volatile market prices as well as climatic conditions introduce a great deal of uncertainty in agricultural production. These factor s form part of the system th at is beyond the control of the farmers. Thus, these factors add yet another dimension to the formal theory of CA. Given limited literature on collective action organized around agricultural production, there has been a need to derive empirical evidence. Efforts to reinforce collective action in CPRs organized around agricultu ral production were short-lived (Ostrom and Gardner, 1993; Griffin et al., 2002). According to Quiggin (1995), systems that were based on common ownership of property were not widespread, wh ereas other forms of co mmon property resources included land tenure reforms as well as irrigation schemes. Irrigation schemes in particular did not achieve positive impact due to tendencies to discourage subsistence agricultural production among agrarian communities (Ostrom and Gardner, 1993). It must be noted that external forces tended to dictate the extent to which co-users and coowners can exploit CPRs. Particularly for natu rally evolving resources, the monolithic role of the state in managing such resources was devol ved to local users (Agrawal, 2005, p. 29; MeizenDick, Raju and Gulati, 2000). Consequently, loca l CPRs were governed through rules that were derived locally (McCay and Jent oft, 1998). However, Meizen-Dic k et al. (2000) cautioned that care should be exercised to not assume that user s of resources are keen in providing management responsibilities.

PAGE 46

46 In this section, the context within which co mmon property resources are manifested has been highlighted. However, extensive research is concentrated on common property resources that are naturally evolving. Hence, literature in the ensuing section focu ses on collective action in relation to naturally evolving resources. The Concept of Collective Action Collective action is based on the notion of group formation. One of the most important characteristics of group formation is that indivi duals will become involved in groups for various reasons (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003, p. 14). Either voluntarily or involunta rily, people subscribe their membership to various organizations. In the case of CA under th e current study, it is apparent that farms are made possible through pro-land redist ribution policies. However, CA based on conscious decisionmaking may involve developing institutions, mobilizing resources, coordination of activities, as well as sharing of information (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003, p. 14). Therefore, the diverse nature of CA determines benefits that accrue, whereas group size also determines the propor tion allocated to i ndividual members. Sugden (1984) claimed that any collection of individuals can count as a group. Oliver (1993) disputed this claim by declaring that this statement is indistin ct and empty. Oliver indicated that there is a natural tendency for people with shared interests to act together in pursuit of interests. According to Etzi on (1996), people tend to engage in collective action either based on self-interests or social nor ms. Self-interests may be base d on the notion of public good derived from the resource, and multiple users may be able to use the resource simultaneously (Sugden, 1984). Myatt and Wallace (2003) asserted that it is tempting to think that subscription to a particular group implies participation in co llective activities, which w ould in turn determine the degree to which output can be derived. Howe ver, Sugden (1984) argued that it cannot be assumed that collective benefits will evolve automatically, even though group members may

PAGE 47

47 have all the necessary tools to help them achieve likely benefits. Veraghese and Ostrom (2001) concurred and argued that neither group membersh ip nor group size will ensure the success of a given project or task as is claimed by some authors. McCarthy et al. (1998) and Qu iggin (1995) demonstrated th e characteristics of CA organized around resources that combined both private and common ownership of property. According to Quiggin, some examples have included irrigation systems, watering private cropland, jointly owned agricultura l machinery harvesting private cr ops or privately owned cattle grazing on common land. Nonetheless, it is generally acknowledged th at defining CA on the basis of actions producing a collective g ood (Olson, 1965) was seminal. Hardin (1968) elaborated on Olsons theory by indicating that a coll ective good is a benefit which ca nnot be withheld from other members. Another follow up by Myatt and Wa llace (2003, 2004) indicate d that a collective good is non-excludable if all individuals are fr ee to consume it, once it has been provided. Although Olsons work is commendable, Ol son has been criticized for appearing contradictory by claming that contributions ma de by individuals may not be noticeable in a larger group. On the one hand, Hardin (1968) is disputed for confusing the tragedies of open access with that of the commons (Oliver, 1993; McCay and Jentoft, 1998; Theesfeld, 2004). Theesfeld (2004) claimed that Hardins expressi on of the tragedy of the commons denoted the degradation of resources that are subtractable. Other scholars of CA found Hardins criticisms undesirable and considered such criticisms problematic (McCay and Jentoft, 1998). McCay and Jentoft asserted that although Hardins model may be deficient, it provided useful insights and it wa s a useful analytic tool. McCay and Jentoft further indicated that ri gorous, empirically-based comparat ive analysis could help counter

PAGE 48

48 the criticism. In addition, detractors should take into account that one of the important characteristics of theory is falsifiability Therefore, theories evolve. It is generally acknowledged; however, that c onsiderable progress has been made in the study of CA. Even so, the study of CA was conf ronted with methodological challenges. Thus, calls were made to rethink the theoretical foundations for the analysis of common property resources (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001). It has been observed that progress made in the study of CA seemed to be diverging and even competing at times (Chwe, 1999). Chwe submitted that an emphasis has been on the influence of social struct ure, whereas the other studies tended to focus on the incentives for individual pa rticipation. Oliver ( 1993) suggested that mo st researchers have generally studied social and orga nizational processes that make action possible, whereas little has been done on causation Quiggin (1995) concurred and asserted that much of the theoretical as well as empirical evidence on collective action was based on game theoretic simulations. Therefore, it was apparent that current specu lative abstractions tend to restrict the generalizability of the concep t (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001; Poteete and Ostrom, 2003). McCay and Jentoft (1998) claimed that inqu iry in the study of CA has ignored a wide variety of properties th at may be encompassed by the term. On other hand, Poteete and Ostrom (2003) asserted that attempts to synthesize findi ngs from multiple studies have been faced with challenges of evaluating analytical similar ities and differences among different types of collective action. Therefor e, the varied context within wh ich CA was manifested poses a challenge. Stocker (2004) asserted that Ostrom is probably the only scholar who championed CA. However, Stocker critiqued Ostrom for overem phasis on individual behavior as shaped by the rules in use. Stocker argued that the use of rational choice theory by Ostrom is deemed

PAGE 49

49 undesirable. Stocker advocates for the cultura l institutional theory that embodies a more socialized understandin g of human behavior. Further, Agra wal (2001) called for a broader view of common pool resources than just mere design principles. Agrawa l argued in favor of factors that condition the environment. It was observed that an environm ent can either facilitate or constrain an organization, ther efore creating incentives or disi ncentives for people to work together (Theesfeld, 2004; Randhir and Lee, 1995). This section has illustrated trends in the study of CA. The theoretical origin of the phenomenon has been highlighted, and inconsistenc ies in the formal theory were apparent. The following section highlights factors that affect collective action. Factors Affecting Collective Action Previous research on CA and CPRs has larg ely focused on factors determining emergence of collective action and its resilience (Knox and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). Knox and Meinzen-Dick identified factors that are believ ed to shape CA in large part and notably, these included but were not limited to, the importance of CPRs to lo cal livelihood systems, group heterogeneity, the ability to organize and the capacity to manage resources, the investment needed to make resources productive, as well as the support of external stakehol ders in facili tating collective action. Other scholars have also identified conditions that evok e and sustain collective action. Dayton-Johnson (2000) indicated th at the characteristics as we ll as the performance of the group can influence collective actio n. Social heterogeneity could lower a cooperative effort, and this could be in the form of economic inequa lity, social inequalit y, ethnic or religious differences, among others (Myatt and Wallace, 2004). Myatt and Wallace asserted that when users are asymmetrical, their identities ma tter. Similarly, CA could be weakened in circumstances where members are expected to contribute in one di rection or the other (Aggarwal, 2000; Baland and Platteau, 1999), wh ereas problems pertaining to opportunistic

PAGE 50

50 behavior may be prevalent (B aland and Platteau, 1997). Baland and Platteau (1999) disputed Olsons (1965) assertion by illustrating that ineq uality did not favor the creation of public goods. On the contrary, Campbell, Mandondo, Nemarundwe and Sithole (2001) observed that differences in social class and ethnicity can make consensus building and norm enforcement difficult. Such difficulties came from the assumed problems of distrust a nd the lack of mutual understanding (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001). There has been no apparent consensus on the question of heterogeneity in CA. Baland and Platteau (1999) claimed that role of inequality among users is deba table, and also the relationship between the distribution of w ealth and outside opportunities has been ambiguous. Despite the lack of consistency on the study of social inequality, it has been argued that the conditions under which certain types of heterogeneity undermine or enhance collective action have remained largely unknown (Veraghese and Ostrom, 2001). Furt hermore, clarity is lacking as to whether the attributes of a given group of users affect the likelihood of collect ive action, or whether, given those attributes, users devise institutional mechanisms to reduce costs and enhance cooperation. Bardhan (2000) suggested that theoretically, the relationshi p between heterogeneity and successful collective action has been a complex one. Bardhan indicated that there has been tendency among students of CA to confuse inequality with group size. Therefore, inequality has been largely obfuscated in many field studi es and findings have been misleading. Nonetheless, Olson (1965) argued that member ship in a large group reduces benefits to individuals members, whereas th e likelihood to free-ride on the c ooperative efforts of others increases. Furthermore, group size may have also been instrumental at the input stage (Myatt and Wallace, 2004). Other scholars observed that groups are more likely to succeed when there

PAGE 51

51 is positive correlation between the cost of contribution and the benefit acquired (Myatt and Wallace, 2004; Dayton-Johnson, 2000; Olson, 1965). However, what remained concealed in this debate was identifying the point where the relationship between group size a nd benefits can be detected along the continuum of CA. In order to gain insights on the pr ocession of CA, longitudinal st udy designs are warranted. Other questions that remained outstandi ng in relation to group size are conc erned with the role of social networking, moral values, norms of trust and reci procity, and relative proc livity toward altruism versus self-interest, to mention a few (K nox and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). Nonetheless, Knox and Meinzen-Dick hypothesized that previous experien ces in collective action from other settings such as credit and savings groups are likely to contribute toward CA. The conventional concept of CA has been criticized for its fa ilure to adequately explain conditions in settings where collective actors cr eate and sustain agreements to avoid serious problems of over-appropriation (V eraghese and Ostrom, 2001). A nother limitation of the concept has been the failure to predict the conditions under which ownership will improve outcomes. Conducting a study in redistributed farms was yet an attempt to illuminate such concerns. In addition, recent theoretical advanc ements have begun to elucidate so me of the conditions that are conducive to local self-organ ization (Ostrom, 2000). Of particular importance, CA has not been a unitary phenomenon (Campbell et al., 2001). In addition, the events that ar e subsumed under the term collective action are complex and diverse to allow simple generalizations about its causes, effects, or dynamics (Bardhan, 2000). Campbell et al. further asserted that given lack of congruen ce between the literature and the realities on the ground, much of th e literature has had limited applic ability to on-going research and development on community-based or common property systems. Lack of consistency has

PAGE 52

52 made the design of new empirical studies to advance the body of knowledge quite difficult (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003). Therefore, stan dardization and devel oping valid and reliable research instruments in the study of CA should be the main focus for future studies. This section presented ongoing debates on the f actors that affect colle ctive action. It is the general consensus that advancements on the phe nomenon have been inconclusive. The following section highlights land reform experiences of the past. Land Reform Experiences Land reform has generally been implemented in order to level out ine qualities with regard to land ownership patterns. Thus, the program has been socio-political in nature (Binswanger and Deininger, 1993; Griffin, et al., 2002), with the sa me theme applied to the current land reform of South Africa. Other countries in Sub-Sahara n Africa that have implemented land reform programs in the past include Kenya, Namibia, Z imbabwe, Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia (Griffin, et al., 2002). According to Griffin and colleagues, a commonality between these countries except Ethiopia was that colonial governments had displ aced African tenure systems that were based on communal rights. Although the dawn of land reform was w itnessed following WWII (Binswanger and Deininger, 1993), after years of economic conser vatism, renewed interest in the development agenda stirred (Borass, 2006; Gri ffin et al., 2002). Griffin and co lleagues noted th at despite the types of land tenure reform such as private titling or collective act ion, implemented in SubSaharan Africa, successes have been limited. Western forms of land titling were deemed undesirable because land sales could not be performed under communal systems. However, positive experiences were reported from Iran, East Punjab, Eastern India, China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Bolivia, and Ethiopia wh ere land was transferred to tenants, unlike experiences from Latin America, Algeria, East ern and Southern Africa that did not achieve

PAGE 53

53 efficiency (Biswanger and Deininger, 1993). Bisw anger and Deininger noted that there were examples from countries such as East Germa ny, Peru, Chile, Mozambique Algeria, where farms were converted from commercial into state fa rms. Furthermore, farms acquired collectively tended to degenerate over time and the capital stock deteriorated. According to Griffin et al (2002) one of the purposes of land reform is to dismantle the system of labor controls a nd reduce monopolistic power of la rge landowners. This hypothesis was based on the premise that redistribution of la nd will lead to a more equitable distribution of productive wealth. However, prev ious experiences illustrated th at the policy approach toward land reform was neither static nor rigid. Bisw anger and Deininger (1993) became the proponents for a shift from state-led land reform to a redi stributive land reform, which is based on market standards. However, Borass (2003) asserted th at this recommendation was heavily contested by various stakeholders within policy formulation circles. The market-oriented approach to land redistribution has been a recent policy recommendation proposed by the World Bank, and ha s been implemented in Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. Borass (2006) reported that la nd redistribution in the Philippines was marked by discrepancies that discredite d it from being considered a re distributive land reform program. Nonetheless, analysis of empirical evidence pointed out that land redistribution has been associated with some shortcomings (Borass, 2003). Borass noted that the pro-market stance toward land redistribution is dema nd-driven as opposed to the stat e-led stance, which is solely supply-driven. Examples on state-led land reform programs have been cited from countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (Griffi n et al., 2002). Although the Latin American experiences were somewhat improved and mode led after Asian programs (McCarthy, de Janvry, Sadoulet, 1998), land was expropriated in Mexic o, Bolivia and Cuba (Griffin et al., 2002).

PAGE 54

54 Griffin and colleagues asserted th at experiences from Latin America suggest that land reform is likely to succeed when it is enshrined in th e rural development strategy. Although strides have been taken toward providing financial suppor t through comprehensive agricultural programs (CASP), the lack of support servic es in redistributed farms of S outh Africa has previously been echoed (Aliber, 2003; Borass, 2003; Deininger a nd May, 2000; Deininger, 1999). This section has given an overview of former types of land reform as well as the emerging redistributive reform. Varied experiences can be attributed to differences in policy approaches adapted in respective countries. Collective form s of land reform can be located within the conceptual framework of collective action as well as the theoreti cal framework of group cohesiveness. Summary This chapter highlighted the literature a nd the theoretical frameworks within which redistributed farms are embedded. A common deno minator between collective action (CA) and group cohesiveness has been that they ar e both grounded within group dynamics and the formation of groups. Thus, groups are central to the study of CA and gr oup cohesiveness. What is striking in the study of thes e phenomena are the complications of designing empirical studies that can yield consistent result s. The review demonstrated that the challenges in studying these areas can be traced back to thei r origins i.e., group dynamics. Th e fact that groups are pervasive in various spheres of society makes standardizat ion more of a challenge Students of collective action as well as group cohesivene ss have grappled with concep tual as well as methodological challenges. Group cohesiveness has made remarkab le empirical advancements toward theory building. In contrast, more work is needed to de velop collective action into a reliable (Ostrom, 1991, p.7) and valid concept. Extens ive studies in CA are generall y descriptive in nature, unlike

PAGE 55

55 the study of group cohesiveness, which is genera lly rigorous by using both experimental and correlational designs. Collective action can be categorized as descri ptive in nature, wher eas group cohesiveness is generally explanatory. Therefor e, as alluded to prior, group c ohesiveness has more potential to contribute toward theory building th an does collective action.

PAGE 56

56Table 2-1 Types of groups formed deliberately (Adapted from Cartwright and Zander, 1968) Type of group Definition Work groups Perform tasks efficiently through the pooling and coordinati on of the behavioral and resources of a collection of individuals. Problem-solving groups Designed on the basis that a solution will be attained more efficiently when a collection of people work on the problem than when work is performed independently Social-action groups Formed out of a de sire to exert influence in society Mediating groups Created to coor dinate activities of other groups distribute resources among them, and reconcile conf lict of interest. Legislative groups Created to devel op rules, regulations, laws, or pol icies that govern behavior Client groups The performance of services is more effective or efficient if the clients are treated as groups rather than as individuals.

PAGE 57

57 Perceived Group Cohesiveness Group Integration Individual Attractions to Group Social Task Social Task Figure 2-1 Conceptual model of group cohesiveness (Carron et al., 1985, reproduc ed with permission)

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to explore th e degree of perceived group cohesiveness in redistributed farms as well as the factors infl uencing group cohesiveness A Likert-type scale was used to measure perceived group cohesi veness. Factors influe ncing perceived group cohesiveness were measured by using indices, an d questionnaires were deve loped and utilized to obtain factual data. This chapter outlines the research design that guided the measurement procedures employed. Research Design A cross-sectional research design was employe d in this study. Crosssectional research design permits data collection at a single point in time (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 2002, p. 379; Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 112). Rubin and Babbie asserted that crosssectional design is correlational in nature, whereas Ary et al. referred to this design as causal comparative because it attempts to establish cause-and-effect re lationships between inde pendent variables and dependent variables. The causal comparative design does not permit either ra ndomization or manipulation of the independent variables. Another limitation asso ciated with this design has to do with the difficulty in the establishment of causation. Ar y and associates warned against mistakenly attributing causation between tw o variables, referred to as post hoc fallacy (p. 337). Spurious relationships were also a concern in this design. Agresti and Finlay (1997, p. 365) defined spurious associations as those that disappear be tween variables when a third variable is controlled for. Ary et al. (2002, p. 337) and Agresti and Finlay outlined three conditions that must be met in order to satisfy causality, and th e conditions ensue hereunder (p. 357):

PAGE 59

59 A statistical relationship between independent variables and de pendent variables should be established. Independent variables sh ould precede the dependent variables in time. Alternate explanations should be eliminated. Bivariate correlations were used to determine re lationships between vari ables, though bivariate correlations are simple and tend to have limite d validity (Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 306). Rubin and Babbie asserted that crosssectional design can control fo r alternative va riables through multivariate statistical procedures. Regression analysis was used in this study to detect covariation between variables. A caveat regarding redistributed farms is that there may be an a rray of other factors influencing the outcome variable, and this st udy measured a limited number of factors as explanatory variables. This posed a threat to internal validity of the findings. Suffice it to say that the explanatory variables explored in the curren t study may only be a part of the factors that influence group cohesiveness on the farms. Group cohesiveness was treated as the dependent (outcome) variable and this was a self-reported measure. Structural characteristics of farms were desc ribed at the farm level (n=13). Nominal data were gathered in order to determine historical ev ents that led to the ev olution of current farm groups. The profile of current fa rm groups was also assessed by collecting nominal level data including demographics, duration of membership as well as positions held within groups by individual group members (n=137). Factors in fluencing perceived gr oup cohesiveness were measured in the form of the degree of satisfac tion with benefits acquired from farms, and the degree of group governance and these were treated as the independent va riables of interest. Addressing validity and reliability formed an important part of the study.

PAGE 60

60 Establishing causation in previous studies of perceived group cohesiveness has been a daunting challenge. Given the cy clical nature of group cohesive ness, it has been difficult to determine whether group cohesiveness was ante cedent or a consequence. Thus perceived group cohesiveness has an ambiguous nature. Accord ing to Carron (1982), antecedent variables can largely affect whether group cohesiveness can be manifested. Neverthele ss, group cohesiveness was considered as an outcome variable in this study. Addressing Validity and Reliability Zeller and Carmines (1980) asserted that the c oncepts of validity and reliability are key to the notion of measurement in social sciences. This process entails identifying theoretically meaningful measures. Zeller and Carmines indicate d that this process seeks to bridge the gap between theoretically deduced measures and empirical evidence. Validity is deemed the most important c onsideration in developing and evaluating measuring instruments (Ary et al., 2002, p. 242). Ge nerally, validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it intends to measure. Validity of measuring instruments includes content, face, construct, and crit erion (Rubin and Babbie, 1997, pp. 177-179). Construct and content validity were a th reat to this study. Construct validity is concerned with interrelationships among multiple measures, whereas content validity relates to the range of meanings within a concept. Both construct a nd content validity were addressed by adapting a standardized instrument for measuring group cohe siveness. Also, other instruments used in the study were carefully constructed. Procedures fo llowed in the development of instruments are discussed in later sections. Internal and external validity of the study were addresse d in relation to the measurement procedure. Internal validity ad dresses if measures contribute c onsistently to the theoretical measures of concepts or if they gauge some thing else (Merriam, 1995; Zeller and Carmines,

PAGE 61

61 1980). External validity is concerned with the ques tion if measures will behave in the same way with similar theoretical concepts in terms of di rection and strength as we ll as consistency of relationships. Given the research design employed in this study, internal validity was threatened because of the difficulty in establishing causati on. However, the design can potentially tease out convincing evidence for causation (Ary et al ., 2002, p. 336) if it is conf igured to control for other variables. Other forms of internal validity that were a threat to the study in cluded history, coverage, and mortality. The history aspect was concerned w ith events that occurred during the course of the study and that had the pot ential to confound results (A ry, et al., 2002, p. 282; Cook and Campbell, 1979, p. 50). Some of the study farms had government financial assistance at the time the study was conducted. Other events also included distribu ting income among group participants on the farms, and the income be ing accumulated over a long period of time. The study experienced mortality because some group part icipants had discontinue d their participation from the farms during the course of the study. Consequently, two of the study farms had only two participants remaining. External validity is divided into ecological and population va lidity. Ecological validity is concerned with whether findings can be observe d under different settings of the domain, whereas population validity refers to whether findings ca n be attained with other subjects of the population (Ary, et al., 2002, p. 298). In this stud y, external validity was limited because the study was based on population. However, the study em ployed measures that were theoretically sound. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the st udy has been exploratory in nature and has the potential to contribute to the e xpansion of research in similar settings of land redistribution.

PAGE 62

62 Findings from this study cannot be generalized to other farms, but research in the area can be extended to other farms in the province and beyond. In terms of reliability, Ary et al. (p. 250) asserted that th e concept can be distinguished from validity based on measurement error (i.e., ra ndom and systematic error). According to Ary and colleagues, random error pertai ns to error that occurs by chan ce, and this error could either overestimate or underestimate individual scores a nd may be difficult to detect. Reliability of a study is concerned with the effect of random erro rs on the consistency of the scores obtained. Reliability is determined by how consistently the instrument meas ures the phenomenon under study. Pre-testing was performed in order to address aspects of both reliability and validity. Details on pre-testing are discus sed later in the chapter. Reliability appears in the form of internal consistency as well as external consistency. Internal consistency refers to the extent to which measures are consistent; whereas external consistency is confirmed when similar results will be observed when a study is replicated (Zeller and Carmines, 1980). Ary et al. (200 2) asserted that reliability is not concerned with the meaning and interpretation of the scores because that is a validity question (p. 267). Generally, it is acknowledged that reliability is essential but not a sufficient condition for validity to occur due to reasons that pertain to systematic or non-random error (Ary et al., 2002, p. 251; Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 184; Zeller and Carmines, 1980). These authors declared that valid factors are those that contain true score variance. According to Downing (2003), research instruments can be validated either by confir ming or denying the hypotheses predicted from a theory based on constructs. Random error poses a greater threat and tends to reduce the validity of a study (Ary et al., 2002, p. 267; Rubin and Babbie, 1997, p. 168; Zelle r and Carmines, 1980). It is a general

PAGE 63

63 consensus that random error is hard to estimate, de tect or eliminate by statis tical tools only, but it requires theoretical insights that would boost the predictive power in the research design. Statistical analysis should try to reject a false null hypothesis (Type II error). Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2004) asserted that Type II error is more difficult to control because it requires configuring the research design so that it has adequate statis tical power. Rossi and colleagues defined statistical power as the probability that an estimate of th e independent variable will be statistically significant when it repr esents a real effect (p. 309). Social desirability and acquiescence are sources of systematic error and these were a threat to the study. Social desirability refers to the tendency by study subj ects to provide responses that may be more acceptable rather than responses that participants would give under neutral conditions (Matthew, Baker, and Spillers, 2003). Bryman (2004, p. 127) and DeVillis (2003) asserted that study participants te nd to agree or disagree consistent ly with a set of questions and this pattern is referred to as acquiescence. Acquiescence is prev alent with scale response type questions and social desirability is likely to occu r with interview type questions (Matthew et al., 2003). Given the manner in which groups under st udy had evolved, social desirability was expected to be a threat becau se it was assumed that group memb ers had developed a sense of belonging and wanted to be loya l to their groups. During data coll ection, social desirability was apparent when responses were used to camoufl age the dynamics within the groups, particularly by members of leadership. However, informal c onversations were used to corroborate responses. Individual respondents brought fort h additional information and this resulted in lengthy questionand-answer sequences, but additional information created room for probing. However, this often resulted in respondent fatigue and data co llection schedules were marked for potential

PAGE 64

64 respondent fatigue. The following section introdu ces the procedure that was followed when selecting study participants. Population and Sampling Procedure A nation wide database on re distributed farms was obtaine d from the Human Sciences Research Council in Pretoria. From this list, a total of 77 farms were identified as those that were redistributed under the Settlement and Land Acquisi tion Grant (SLAG) across the six districts of Limpopo Province. Of 77 farms in the province, 29 were allocated in Capricorn District and these were considered as the sampling frame. Capricorn District is comprised of two municipalities (Polokwane and Molemole). During sampling, an actual inventory of the farms was conducted by physically visiting farms. Discussi ons were also held wi th extension officers about the availability and accessibility of farms. After these exercises, only thirteen farms were identified as operational, and the rest (16 farms) had collapsed and were shut down. As a result, study farms (n=13) were treated as a population of surviving fa rms. Garson (2006) noted that nonrandom sampling can be appropriate in explorator y studies or where it is the only alternative. Five of the study farms were located in Pol okwane, and eight study farms were located in Molemole Municipality. See Figures 3-1 and 32 for the location of the study farms in the provinces as well as their distribu tion across the two municipalities. The number of participants in the study farms was dependent upon the size of the group at the time of the study. From the 13 farms, data we re collected from 137 respondents. Participation in the study by respondents was voluntary as re quired by the Institut ional Review Board. A protocol was submitted to UFIRB for appr oval prior to pre-testing (UFIRB #2006-U-0436). Revisions based on pre-testing were resubmitted el ectronically to UFIRB and data collection was resumed upon approval. A copy of the approved protocol is attached in Appendix A.

PAGE 65

65 Research Instruments Data collection was conducted both at the farm level (n=13) and at the individual level (n=137). A farm inventory tool was used as well as group interviews to collect data at the farm level. The degree of perceived group cohesiveness and explanatory factors were measured at the individual level. Therefore, measurement was perfor med at different levels (i.e., interval, ordinal, and nominal). Data collection instruments utilized are discussed in detail below. Group environment questionnaire (GEQ) Carron et al. (1985) develope d the group environment questionnaire (GEQ) as a measure for perceived group cohesiveness, and this instru ment was adapted in this study. The (GEQ) is a 9-point Likert-type scale consis ting of 18 items (rating scale from 1= strongly disagree to 9= strongly agree). Perceived group co hesiveness was measured as an outcome variable, and the larger the score, the stronger the perception. Gr oup cohesiveness is multidimensional, and the dimensions are evaluated through various indice s. Notably, the four dimensions of group cohesiveness include group integration-task (GIT); group integration-soci al (GI-S), individual attractions to group-task (ATG-T), and indivi dual attractions to group-social (ATG-S). Individual indices are comprised by multiple items; thus, group cohesiveness is a complex composite latent variable. Sommer and Sommer (2002) and DeVellis ( 2003) asserted that multiple items are a good way to increase the reliab ility of scales. Cronbachs Alpha coefficients for the four constructs are reported in Table 3.1 and these range from moderate to high (.64 to .76). Carron et al. (1985) proposed th at the social aspect of group cohesiveness relates to the general orientation toward developing and ma intaining social relationships within a group, whereas task aspects relate to achieving goals and objectives. Group cohe siveness is generally viewed through forces that cause individual gr oup members to remain and continue their

PAGE 66

66 participation in a group. The operational definition of individual attractions to group-task (ATGT) is based on the perceived functionality of gr oups (farms) by individual members. Therefore, farms were considered as entities that are sour ce and means for achieving desirable outcomes or benefits. Individual attraction to the group-social (ATG-S) is associated with interpersonal interactions among members of gr oups. Characteristics of indivi dual members such as age, sex, level of education, to mention a few were treated as antecedent variables. At the group level, group integration repres ents perceptions con cerning the group in its entirety and the factors influencing continue d existence of the group. The degree to which individual members of groups are involved in bo th task and social aspects determines their continued participation in the groups. Post hoc reliability analysis was performed and scale items were selected for further analysis. Details on post hoc reliability analysis are presented later in this chapter. GEQ was administered in the local language of Sepedi. Unlike the traditional a pproach of the selfadministered instrument, the GEQ was admini stered one-on-one. Minor changes in the GEQ were made. For example, a term such as t eam was replaced by group, and work place by farm. Instruments used in the st udy are attached in Appendix C. Questionnaires and indices Questionnaires were developed and used to obt ain factual and strai ghtforward data. Data were gathered on the structural characteristics of the farms (n=13). Farms were characterized in terms of the number of group members remainin g, ongoing activities, and the degree to which support services were provided. Other scale respons e format measures were developed to collect data at the individual level and were used in conjunction with GEQ. Nominal data were collected on the dem ographics of individual group members. Explanatory factors included perceived degree of group governance and degree of satisfaction

PAGE 67

67 with benefits. The degree of group governance was measured in terms of the flow of information through decision making, problem solving, record k eeping practices, as well as the adherence to the rules used to allocate benefits to ensure equi table distribution. The degr ee to which individual group members in farm groups were satisfied wi th benefits was measured in terms of the importance of benefits, satisfaction with benefi ts, as well as the degree to which benefits acquired improved the standard of living for group members. Explanatory variables were measured using scale response type format questions rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 1 (few) to 5 (too many), 1 (not important) to 5 (very important), 1 (not satisfied at all) to 5 (completely satisfied), 1 (much lower) to 5 (much higher), 1 (not very useful) to 4 (very useful), 1 (never) to 5 (a lways). The higher the score, the stronger the perception on the item Individual items on the measures were also subjected to post hoc reliability analysis. Details on reliability analysis are presented later in the chapter. Explanatory variables were formulated based on the literature and multiple items were used to construct instruments. During instrument development, questions were evaluated through a consultative process. Peer review sessions we re conducted and questions were evaluated based on interpretation and meaning. Questions were th en selected based on discussions during peer reviews. Reviews were also conducted with expe rts. Prior to pre-testing, peer reviewers and experts involved were both gradua te students and professors from th e University of Florida. Questions were eliminated based on their lack of importance, and some were added during review sessions. Peer review sessions identified culturally sensitive questions and questions were rephrased with appropriate wording. The questio n format was also evaluated in terms of post data collection processes such as coding and data entry. Follow-up questions were formulated to ensure internal consistency of measurements. Questions were retained based on clarity and

PAGE 68

68 relevance to the concept under consideration. Le ading questions were either eliminated or rephrased. Other considerations were based on the wording order, spelling errors and typographical errors. During pre-testing, review sessi ons were continued and ques tions were evaluated based either on the difficulty to ask or simplicity to answer. Addressing validi ty and reliability was challenged at multiple stages of the study, and statis tical analyses formed the latter part of the process. Given the inverse relationship between reliability and precision, addressing reliability was more important than addr essing precision. However, the measures of perceived group cohesiveness included both positive and negati ve items and, thus, addressed precision to a certain extent. Negative scale items were reverse coded during data analysis. Discussion guide for group interviews Nominal data were collected through group in terviews. Group interviews were used to determine the experiences that led to the evolu tion of current farm groups. Detailed information was collected on the processes by which current fa rm groups had evolved, particularly in terms of production activities as well as governance. Interviews we re important given that group cohesiveness is cyclical and can vary depe nding on the phase in group development. Probing was used as a follow up technique during discussions. Selection of participants for group interviews was left to group members, and this method allowed rapport within the research setting to emerge. The number of participants was largely determined by the size of the groups in study farms. The ability to participate in group interviews was also determined by ongoing tasks at the tim e the interviews were scheduled. However, member checking was conducted, and informal c onversations were used to corroborate data collected from the group particip ants who were involved in gr oup interviews. Other informal

PAGE 69

69 discussions were held with extension officers and these were used as strategically to increase the understanding of the farms. Although the number of particip ants varied from one farm to another, a focus group interview approach was used to conduct group interviews. The re searcher moderated discussions and proceedings were recorded with an audi o tape with prior permission granted by the participants. According the Berg (2004, p. 123), the role of a moderator is to elicit information from the participants on the s ubject of interest. The moderato r facilitates group discussions (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 178). Transcriptions were performed and data were open coded for thematic analysis. Topics in the discussion guide were developed through a cons ultative process and these are included in Appendix C. Revisions were made based on the contributions from peers as well as from experts. The decision to conduct group in terviews was made after pre-testing. Peer reviewers and experts included gr aduate students and professors at the University of Limpopo, South Africa. Topics in the discussion guide were further clarified for meaning and interpretation. Pre-testing research instruments Pre-testing was performed for the purposes of addressing construct validity and two farms were used for this exercise. Pre-testing is deemed an appropriate measure to reduce the likelihood of systematic error. Rubin and Babbi e (1997) proposed that systematic error is explained by the disconnect between data collected and the theo retical concept under consideration (p. 161). Sommer and Sommer (2002) asserted that pre-testing of research instruments also helps in identifying difficult and ambiguous terms. Addressing reliability and validity of the measurements aided in reducing the likeli hood of errors.

PAGE 70

70 During pre-testing, it was difficult to administer and score the 9point Likert-type scale. As a result, a decision was made to collapse the 9-po int scale into 5-points. Shapcott, Carron, Burke, Bradshaw and Estabrooks (2006) adapted meas ures of cohesiveness as a 5-point scale. Furthermore, Emons, Sijitsma and Meijer (2007) observed small differences between dichotomous and polytomous scale items. Given th e prevalence of low leve ls of literacy among respondents, a step ladder with 5 step s was used to illustrate the 5-point scale to the respondents. Research assistants were recruited from the University of Limpopo and were trained prior to pre-testing. Instruments were further revi ewed and revised base d on discussions during training sessions. Research assi stants were encouraged to practice question-and-answer style during training sessions. The exerci se was performed in the local vernacular of Sepedi. Review sessions were also scheduled after pre-testing visits to the farms, and further revisions were made based on the follow up discussions with research a ssistants. Research assistants were encouraged to make journal entries during pre-testing and thei r notes were also discussed after pre-testing. Collins (2003) indicated that a research process entail s data collection through an instrument by the enumerator. Therefore, results observed from a study ei ther derives from the instrument or are due to the effect of the enum erator. Given this consideration, fewer research assistants were retained for further data collection. Data Collection This study was conducted between June 2006 and December 2006. Following pre-testing, data collection was conducted in th ree phases. Initial vis its to the farms were made to establish contact and introduce the study as well as pres ent the consent documen ts (a requirement by UFIRB). Group participants were allowed some time to discuss granting permission for the study to be conducted on their farms. Telephone calls as well as visits were conducted to inquire if permission had been granted, and data collec tion was only commenced after permission was

PAGE 71

71 granted. In the case where contact details were ac cessed, leaders of farms we re initially contacted by telephone and the purpose of th e study was explained to them. Th e leaders at times shared the information with other group members and in su ch cases permission was granted on the day of the first visit. In such instances, leaders also gave consent for collecti ng farm inventory data on the first visit. In other instances, farm level data were co llected during subsequent visits and mainly leaders of farms generally participated duri ng this stage (n=13). Group interviews were conducted during the second phase. The third phase of the study entailed da ta collection at the individual level (n=137). Likert -type scale and other scale respons e type format measures were used. Interview techniques were blended during da ta collection at the individual level. Pointed questions and probing were used to follow up on the latent meaning of specific responses. Worster and Abrams (2005) found that pointed qu estions and probing were useful for revisiting questions that were either not adequately an swered or for following up on interesting points. Therefore open-ended type responses were also obt ained concurrently with data collected at the individual level. More background information on the farms was attained by reviewing documents such as business plans, constitutions, and the deed of trus ts. Informal discussions were also held with extension officers from the Limpopo Department of Agriculture. Getting an outside perspective through informal conversations was useful and provided a broader understanding of the dynamics of the farms. Unstructured observations were also conducted throughout the study. However, performing observations was a challenge prior to establishing rapport w ith individuals on the farms. Informal conversations were held with members of groups either during task performance

PAGE 72

72 on the farms or outside of the farms. The conten t of the conversations was noted; however, such statements were handled with caution and were ma inly used to corroborate other responses, and to render general information about the farms. Conducting group interviews prior to data collection at the individual level was importa nt because it gave the basis for evaluating individual responses. A journal was kept by the researcher and informal conversations were recorded. The journal was updated afte r each visit to the farms. Social exchange theory was utilized for the purposes of establishing rapport with members of farm groups. This theory is based on exchange s as tokens of apprecia tion between the parties involved in a research study. Dillman (2000, p. 14) asserted there are many ways in which perceived costs for participating in a research study could be reduced. Light refreshments were sometimes offered to participants, and pictures taken during farms visits were printed and taken to the farms during subsequent visits. Whenever possible, the research er lent a helping hand during task performance and this enhanced rapport prior to data collecting at the individual level. Data Analysis Various methods facilitated data collection. As a result, data were collected at various levels of measurement interval, ordinal, and no minal. Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS) was utilized in analyzing data. Descriptive st atistics were used to assess measures of central tendency as well as the dist ribution of data. Missing data of less than 5% were not imputed (Noruis, 2003, p. 273). Multiple measures on perceptions were summated and scores were computed for individual respondents. Only items that were retained through reliability analysis were used to compute summated scores. T-test for the equality of means and for the equa lity of variance was performed. Regression analysis was used to determine causation between perceived group cohesiveness and explanatory variables. The ri sk of committing a Type II error was minimized

PAGE 73

73 by retaining cases with low cohesiveness. Carron et al. (2003) observed th at discarding cases with low levels of cohesiveness tends to weaken statistical power. Nomina l data were transcribed and open coding was used to identif y emerging themes (Kossak, 2005). Reliability of Measuring Instruments Group cohesiveness is a multidimensional construct and was measured using a multidimensional Likert-type scale (Carron et al ., 1985). Schafer and Graham (2002) asserted that many latent variables cannot be measured reliably by a single item. Scales are typically created and multiple items are averaged (Clas on and Dormody, 1994). Other scale response type items were developed as measures of degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, and degree of satisf action with support services (n =137). The degree to which support services were provided was meas ured at the farm level (n =13). Post hoc reliability analysis was performed to determine Alpha coefficients for individual indices on the Likert-type scale a nd other scale response type measur es (Tables 3-2 to 3-8). Items used in data analysis were se lected through Alpha as well as in ter-item correlation coefficients. Only the items that were retained are reported in the results. Further iterations were performed until the highest Alpha coefficient level was obtained and inter-item correlation coefficients were relatively consistent internally. As a result, items on the GEQ that were less consistent with other items were deleted. This practice was also performed by Chang and Bordia (2001). For the measures of group cohesiveness, deletion of items was performed at the level of the indices individual attractions to groupsocial (IATG-S), individual attr actions to group-task (IATG-T), group integration-task (GI-T), and group integration-social (GI-S). Indices of group cohesiveness had low to mode rate reliability coefficients (.51 .65). However, the overall Alpha coefficient for group cohesiveness was .66. Scales with good measures are expected to yield Alpha coe fficients above .80 (Noruis, 2003, p. 438), but a

PAGE 74

74 coefficient of .60 is acceptable for explorator y studies (Garson, 2007). Emons et al. (2007) cautioned that short measuring in struments (less 20 items) tend to have higher probability of measurement error. Emons and colleagues recomme nded that short tests be combined with other measures in order to increase reliability. Burke et al. (2005) observed Al pha coefficients on the GEQ ranging from .47 to .74. In this study, post hoc overall reliability analysis yielded an Alpha coefficient of .82. The overall Alpha coefficient computed after pre-test ing yielded an Alpha coefficient of .76. Final reliability coefficients for respective indices ar e presented in Appendix B. Individual measures on the degree of satisf action with support se rvices had very low reliability coefficients (see Appendix B). As a result, such items are reported as individual measures. Missing data of less than 5% were treated as non responses (Noruis, 2003, p. 273) when computing reliability coefficients. Summary This chapter presented the procedures that f acilitated the collection of relevant data. A cross-sectional design underpinne d this study. Pre-testing of res earch instruments was performed prior to data collection and re visions were made based on the outcomes of the exercise. The population of the study as well as the sa mpling procedure were highlighted. Data collection instruments and instrument development procedures were discussed. Methods of data analysis were explained. Post hoc reliability analys is was presented and selection of items was based on the Alpha coe fficients and inter-item total correlation.

PAGE 75

75 Table 3-1 Cronbachs Alpha coefficients fo r individual indices on the group environment questionnaire Construct Alpha coefficient Individual attracti ons to group-Task .75 Individual attractions to group-Social .64 Group integration-Task .70 Group integration-Social .76 Cronbachs Alpha levels adapted from Carron et al (1985, used with permission). Alpha coefficients were derived from a sample size of 247. Table 3-2 Reliability analysis on the degree of provision of support services Item n Alpha if item deleted Frequency of farm visits 13 .26 Provision of information 13 .38 Provision of advice 13 .43 Access to finances 13 .67 Access to machinery 13 .54 Accessibility of service providers 13 .64 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach s Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final Al pha coefficient for the index is .91. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. Table 3-3 Reliability analysis on the de gree of satisfaction with benefits Item n Alpha if item deleted Importance of benefits 129 .52 Satisfaction with benefits 129 .52 Improved living standard for self 129 .48 Social classes represented 129 .70 Improved living standard for others 129 .58 Group importance 129 .54 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach s Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final Al pha coefficient for the index is .70. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha.

PAGE 76

76 Table 3-4 Reliability analysis on the degree of group governance Item n Alpha if item deleted Involvement in decision-making 131 .83 Involvement in problem-solving 131 .82 Record keeping on expenditures 131 .81 Record keeping on sales 131 .81 Record keeping on all records 131 .81 Benefit allocation rules 131 .84 Equitable distribution of benefits 131 .85 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach s Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final Al pha coefficient for the index is .84. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. Table 3-5 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual at tractions to the group-social Item n Alpha if item deleted I do not enjoy being part of the so cial activities of this group* 135 .49 I am not going to miss the members of this group when I leave* 135 .25 Some of my best friends are in this group 135 .45 I enjoy other activities more than group activities 135 .51 For me, this group is one of the most important social group to which I belong 135 .37 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach s Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final Al pha coefficient for the index is .57. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. *Items were reverse coded. Table 3-6 Reliability analysis on individual items of individual attractions to the group-task Item n Alpha if item deleted I am not happy with the amount of time I spend working in this group* 135 .40 I am unhappy with the groups le vel of desire to succeed* 135 .35 This group does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance* 135 .52 I do not like style of work in this group* 135 .33 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach s Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final Al pha coefficient for the index is .52. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. *Items were reverse coded.

PAGE 77

77 Table 3-7 Reliability analys is on group integration-task Item n Alpha if item deleted Our group is united in trying to reac h its goals for performance 135 .19 We all take responsibility for any poor performance/mistakes by our group 135 .42 Our group members have conflicting aspirations for the groups performance 135 .51 If members of our groups have problems during work, everyone wants to help them so we can continue working everyone in group helps 135 .41 Members of group do not communicate freely about each persons responsibilit ies within the group* 135 .42 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbachs Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final Al pha coefficient for the index is .51. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. *Items were reverse coded. Table 3-8 Reliability analysis on indi vidual items of group integration-social Item n Alpha if item deleted Members of our group would not wo rk on their own rather than as a group* 135 .49 Our group members socialize together 135 .33 Our group would like to spend time together off work 135 .11 Members of our group stick together after work 135 .26 Note. Reliability coefficients were computed through Cronbach s Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Final coefficient for the index is .65. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. *Item was reverse coded.

PAGE 78

78 Figure 3-1 Location of study farms in Limpopo Province

PAGE 79

79 Polokwane Municipality Molemole MunicipalityLimpopo Province 050Kilometers N Figure 3-2 Distribution of study farms between the two municipalities

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The previous chapter presented research design and methodology that facilitated data collection. Instruments used in the study were pres ented. At the farm level (n=13), nominal data were collected on the structural characteristics of study farms. At the individual level (n=137), perceptions of group participants were measured on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, the degree of group governance, and the degree of group cohesiveness. Demo graphics and other nominal data were also collected at the indi vidual level (n=137). Scal e response type format responses were summated and scores were comput ed. T-tests were performed for the equality of means and variance. Other nominal data were op en-coded and themes were identified. Linear regression analysis was used to identify causal relationships between perceived group cohesiveness and the explanatory variables. Profile of Study Farms The Genesis of Study Farms Although land redistribution was a country-wide program, reasons for launching claims for the farms under study varied. Therefore, curren t patterns of membership in the groups under study were indicative of earlier processes that tr iggered interest in la unching land claims. Farms such as Lwala le Meetse, Monyamane, Makamots he already had ongoing collaborative relations with previous farm owners. Such collaborations included renting out grazing land to livestock owners in the villages nearby, and employing vi llagers as wage laborers on those farms. Thusanang and Makamotshe had beneficiaries w ho had been employees and tenants prior to redistribution, whereas the beneficiaries of Maboi 3 and 6 farms had been evicted from the farms and established village settlements near the farm s. These villagers launched land claims at the time the redistribution program was instituted.

PAGE 81

81 Fanang diatla, Lehlabile, and Thusanang used to be owned by the same owner and the employees at that time were encouraged to la unch claims. Most of the beneficiaries at Marginalized, Watervaal, and Marobala came fr om the same village Marobala village. However, these farms were registered as standalone entities. Beneficiaries who were entirely new to the farms (i.e., Marobala and Makamotshe) were registered togeth er with those who had been employees of the previous owners. In both farms, all group members remaining are those who had been on the farms as employees, except fo r one beneficiary in each farm who had come under land redistribution. Characteristics of Study Farms Study farms were registered ei ther as trusts or communal property associations (CPAs). Nine of the study farms were trusts, and four we re CPAs (Table 4-1). Trust farms were led by boards of trustees, whereas CPAs were led by steering committees. Trust farms were registered with the deeds office of South Africa, and were subject to relatively stringent legal procedures as compared to CPA farms. According to the deed s of trusts reviewed, th e board of trustees was registered as the legal owner of the trust, whereas CPA farms were administered by the Department of Land Affairs. Study farms occupied land area of 15,686 hect ares, and a total of 1,784 individuals were registered as rightful beneficiaries. Group size base d on the number of regist ered beneficiaries in study farms ranged from 37 to 398 (Table 4-1). At the time of the study, approximately 267 individuals had remained in farm groups based on farm records, representing approximately 15% of the total beneficiaries that were initially re gistered. Approximately 85% of the beneficiaries had discontinued their participa tion. According to the farm records reviewed, approximately 45% of the registered beneficiaries actually move d to occupy the farms after settlement (Table 41), whereas 55% never turned up to participate in farm group activities. However, Table 4-1

PAGE 82

82 shows that 65% of those who turn ed up after settlement had discont inued their participation from the farms at the time of the study. In this rega rd, the turnover rate incl uded beneficiaries who never moved to occupy farms after settlement, as we ll as those who left the farms at some point. Income Generating Activities a nd Remuneration of Farm Labor Income-generating activities va ried on respective farms (Table 4-2), and farms had adopted various strategies for remunerating farm labor Farms mainly keeping livestock (Lwala le Meetse, Monyamane and Marginalized) sold cattle at least once a year. Makamotshe had fruit trees and remunerated work performed at the e nd of the marketing season in December, whereas Fanang diatla awaited income from sales in order to remunerate work already performed. Depending on the income generated from sand mi ning, laborers at Maboi 3 were remunerated on a monthly basis. At Mahlamba ndlovu, employees were remunerated monthly and beneficiaries periodically received in-kind be nefits such as maize, periodica lly. Therefore, distribution of benefits and remuneration for farm labor was ge nerally differentiated according to group position and the rules-in-use varied. Farms renting out grazing land did not have any other ongoing activities due to shortage of water and power supply for an ex tended period of time. Power cuts were often due to outstanding debt and the theft of power supply equipment. Ongoing activities ranged from i ndividual to group-based activ ities. Some of the farms did not permit performance of individual activities, whereas other farms combined both individual and collective activities. On farms that permitted performance of individual activities, parcels of land were demarcated. In Maboi 3 and 6, passive be neficiaries cultivated individual plots of land and were not involved in group activities. Such pa tterns of land use were sources of tension and conflict among beneficiaries. Remaining group me mbers in Maboi 6 and Lehlabile performed solely individual activities, whereas Thusanang ha d no income due to failure to maintain citrus fruit trees. According to Table 4-2, the scale of production activities had declined as compared

PAGE 83

83 with the activities that were pe rformed at the early stages of farm occupation. Other constraints that limited production activities included: Broken equipment and machinery. Limited access to farm inputs. Limited access to the market. Inefficient allocation of resources. Limited access financial assistance. Land bank debt. Limited follow up with government programs. Demographic Characteristics of Me mbers of Current Farm Groups Fifty-five percent of the res pondents were female, and forty-five percent were male (Table 4-3). The age range of respondents was between slightly under 30 years to 60 years or more. Farms with the highest proportions of older re spondents (i.e. 51-60 years or more) included Marginalized (100%), Monyamane (88%), Makgof e (83%), Lwala le meetse, and Maboi 6 with 60%, respectively. Low levels of literacy we re apparent among respondents (69% had no primary education), and only 7% of the responde nts had either high school education or posthigh school education. Prior to their engagement on the farms, fi fty-six percent of the respondents (56%) had worked in the industry, and mainly male responde nts performed such jobs (Table 4-4). Industry jobs included working on commercial farms, bu ilding and construction, and mining. Professional job positions most commonly included teaching. Other informal jobs included ownership of small businesses and housekeeping, and these were performed predominantly by female respondents (63%). Household composition for the respondents in cluded children (85%) as dependents, and 13% of the respondents still lived with parents (Table 4-5). Particularly respondents over 60

PAGE 84

84 years as well as those with children below th e age of 14 years (72%) earned government welfare grants as their source of income (Table 4-6). Respondents in farm groups generally came from either the same village or tribal authority (80%), and the majority (89%) of the respondents were of the Pedi ethn icity, 5% were Vhenda, and 4% were Tsonga. The other 2% of respondent s were from other ethnic groups such as Ndebele and Tswana. Positions held by respondents within farm groups are presented below. Group Positions and Membership Duration Respondents occupied various positions in farm groups (Table 4-7). Regular beneficiaries constituted 48% of the membership in current fa rm groups, whereas 27% were hired as laborers. Twenty-six percent of the respondents occupi ed leadership positions, and 19% were proxy beneficiaries. Members of groups also include d respondents who had previously worked on the farms as employees (32%) for the former farm owners. Twenty-one percent of the former employees were not registered as rightful beneficiaries in cu rrent farm groups. Nonetheless, former employees (39%) also served as member s of leadership. Former employees had become part of the groups either as pr oxy beneficiaries (27%) or hired laborers (46%). Farms with the highest proportions of respondents who were fo rmer employees include Makamotshe (93%), Marobala (75%), and Maboi 3 (68%). One-third of the chairpersons positions were held by females. Both male and female respondents constitu ted 50% representation in farm committees. Although the majority of the respondents (92 %) had been in the groups for two years or more, some respondents had become part of farm groups later. All members of leadership as well as most of the regular beneficiaries (98%) had been in farm groups fo r at least two years. Similarly, former employees (32%) had been in the groups for at least two years or more, and one-fourth (25%) were relatively new to the gro ups (i.e. less than six months). One-third of proxy beneficiaries had been in the groups for less than two years. Group members who had

PAGE 85

85 joined farm groups for less than a year were predominately women (75%). Furthermore, the majority (75%) of proxy beneficiaries were fe males and a moderate proportion (44%) of the employees were women. The number of days individual members spen t on the farms each week was in part contingent upon ongoing production activities. Fi fty-eight percent of the respondents spent between 5-7 days on the farms, whereas 24% spen t 3-4 days and 18% spent only 1-2 days (Table 4-8). However, some of the respondents whose farm s had little or no activities also spent five or more days on the farms. Therefore, amount of time spent on the farm was largely determined by the ability to commute to the home village. Respondents whose home villages were distant from the farm s (36%) stayed on the farms overnight, whereas those whose village dwellings were in close proximity to farms commuted on a daily basis (74%). A high proportion of the respondents (71%) visited home villages on a weekly basis. There was an overlap between re spondents who visited home villages either daily or weekly. Female respondents (61%) visited home villages weekly, while 62% of males visited home once a month. Invariably, farm s had rules and regulations rega rding home visits as well as contribution toward farm tasks. The ensuing se ctions present results on the study objectives. Objective One Describe Perceptions on Group Development Processes that Led to the Evolution of Current Farm Groups, and Degree of Support Services Provided Structures of Governance in Farm Groups Themes that emerged on processes that led to the evolution of st udy groups are presented in Figure 4-1. Members of leadership in resp ective farms were elected during land transfer processes. During group interviews participants indica ted that leadership was elected based on the capacity to represent claimants in various forums. Leaders were elected for their relative

PAGE 86

86 competencies and had become signatories on be half of the claimants. Although current farm groups had the provision to reelect members of leadership, only three of the study farms (i.e., Monyamane, Lwala le Meetse, and Mahlamba ndlovu) had reelected committee members based on specified guidelines. Trust fa rms in particular had not been able to officially change leadership due to legal procedures associated wi th the entities. As a result, trust farms operated under interim leadership. Seven of the study farms did not have functiona l committees, and four of the farms did not have meeting schedules. For those farms that held meetings, the meetings were held anywhere from weekly to once a month. Farms without committees had the least number of group members (2-6 members). The remaining group pa rticipants had become committee members by default. Farm managers were at times co-opt ed to oversee farm activ ities. Four of the study farms had managers and these ma nagers were also responsible for establishing and maintaining contacts with various service providers. Interim leadership was established due to high turnover rate s among members of leadership. Participants in group interviews attributed turnover to the prev alence of corruption among members of leadership. Abuse of power poor management of resources, lack of transparency, and poor communication led to economic bankruptcy a nd disruption of group governance that had been in place. Consequently some of the members of groups discontinued their participation in farm groups. Additionally, participants indica ted that there were power st ruggles between beneficiaries who had been on the farms as employees of th e previous owners and those who came through the land redistribution program. Othe r reasons that were raised during interviews as influencing discontinued participation in farm groups included family responsibilities especially by women,

PAGE 87

87 other employment opportunities, ol d age, as well as health problems and death. Because the initial group processes had been disrupted, it was apparent that current farm groups did not operate under the framework as it had been anticipated. Hence, various forms of land use patterns, participation in group activities, as well as me mbership have since evolved. The following section presents such results. Patterns of Membership, Land Use and Pa rticipation in Group Activities Figure 4-2 illustrates themes that emerged ba sed on the various forms of land use, group membership, and participation in current fa rm groups. Production activities were centered on various enterprises, both agri cultural and non-agricu ltural. Tasks were performed either individually or by farm groups, a nd surrogate labor was at times used to perform tasks on behalf of the group. Individual ac tivities can be differentiated betwee n those that were performed based on consensus according to the rules of the group and those that overrode rules used in farm groups. Group participants also included thos e participating on a part-time. Patterns of participation, membership in current farm groups, and land use are summarized below. Group members participating in grou p activities on full time basis. Group members participating in grou p activities on part-time basis. Proxy group members participating in group activities. Hired/surrogate group members participating in group activities. Members performing exclusiv ely individual activities. Support Services Provided in Study Farms Six of the farms received government assistan ce for purchasing equipment and machinery, as well as other supplies such as vehicles. The extent to which assist ance was provided varied depending on the grant amount remaining after la nd transfers. Other farms had acquired grants from other sponsors for example, Lehlabile, Thusanang, and Fanang dia tla received a common grant and had chicken houses built. Makgofe al so built chicken houses through a grant acquired

PAGE 88

88 from the Department of Health and Welfare. Ho wever, access to the market was a challenge for most of the farms, and produce was generally sold at the farm gate. Other forms of support services on the farms we re in the form of strategic partnerships. Strategic partners provided assistance and paid o ff electricity bills and had the power reinstated in Marobala, Lehlabile and Fanang diatla. Howeve r, respondents indicated that some of the strategic partnerships resulted in conflict because the parties i nvolved did not always honor the terms of agreement. Other service providers on the farms included academic as well as research agencies. Measures of central tendency on the degree to which support services were provided are presented in Table 4-9. The mean for all the it ems was 3.00 and standard deviation ranged from 1.47 to 1.73. Responses on individual items were av eraged and summated scores were computed. According to Noruis (2003, p. 469), scores can be subdivided into those that are below and those that are above the median and the same pr inciple was performed by using the mean. As a result, the grand mean ( M = 9.00) was used as a cut-off point to divide the measures into categories of low and high degree of support prov ided. The minimum and maximum scores were 3 and 15. As noted in Table 4-10, testi ng for the equality of the mean ( t = -6.13, p< .000) was significant but not for the equality of variance ( F = 2.52, p =.14). The following section presents results on data collected at the individual level. Objective Two Describe Perceptions on the Degree of Satisf action with Benefits, Degree of Group Governance, and Degree of Group Cohesiveness Perceived Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits in Study Farms A high proportion (88%) of the respondents ea rned income from the farms, and 64% benefited in the form of food, and 42% benef ited through various educat ional programs. Only

PAGE 89

89 34% of the respondents earned bene fits in the form of firewo od, grazing land for livestock, and individual cropping land. Apart from other support services provided, adult basic literacy education program (ABET) was offered at Ma kgofe, Lwala le Meetse, and Maboi 3. Measures of central tendency are presen ted in Table 4-11. Although farm groups and benefits acquired were deemed important ( M = 3.98), the living standa rds for respondents ( M =2.89) as well as that for other group members had remained the same ( M = 3.01). Respondents were neither satisfied nor di ssatisfied with benefits ( M = 3.21). For all items, the standard deviation ranged from .81 to 1.21. The minimum and maximum scores were 5 and 24. The range was 19. Individual items were averag ed and summated scores were computed. The grand mean ( M = 16.60) was used to subdivide ca tegories of low and high degree of satisfaction with benefits. As denoted in Table 4-12, the tests for the equality of variance ( F = 5.54, p <.05) and equality of means ( t = -16.02, p <.000) for the degree of satisfacti on with benefits was significant. Table 4-13 presents frequency distribution of individual scores between low and high degree of satisfaction with benef its in respective farms. Farms with high proportions of scores below the mean (i.e. low degree of satisfacti on with benefits) incl uded Marobala (100%), Marginalized (85%), Makamotshe (67%), Mabo i 3 (55%), Monyamane (52%), Makgofe (50%). And the farms with high proportions of scores above the mean (i.e. high degree of satisfaction with benefits) include Fanang diatla (78%), Watervaal (75%), Lwala le Meetse (85%), Mahlamba ndlovu (73%), and Maboi 6 (80%). Perceived Degree of Group Governance in Study Farms In Table 4-14, measures of cen tral tendency illustrate str ong perceptions on all items of this index. Respondents were i nvolved in both decision-making ( M = 4.04) and problem-solving ( M = 4.04) processes, and various reco rds were kept at all times ( M = 4.21). Benefits were

PAGE 90

90 distributed equitably among group members ( M = 4.20) and the rules used for allocating benefits to group members were followed ( M = 4.37). However, the standard deviation was wider for some items than others and these ranged from 1.13 to 1.32. Farms with limited production activities at the time of th e study (Makgofe and Marobala) had moderate proportions of respondents who disagreed with the items on reco rdkeeping. Some of the respondents in Maboi 6 (60%), Fanang diatla (44%), Mahlamba ndlovu (40%), Makgofe (33%), and Maboi 3 (27%), were not always involved in decision-making processes. The minimum and maximum scores ranged were 6 and 35, and the range was 29. Individual items were averaged and summated scores were computed. Testing for equality of means ( M =29.79, t = -8.86, p <.000) and the equality of variance ( F = 59.45, p <.000) on the degree of group governance was sign ificant (Table 4-15). As de noted in Table 4-16, frequency distribution of individual scores in farms with the highest propor tions below the mean (i.e. low degree of group governance) include Maboi 6 (100%), Maboi 3 (55%), Mahlamba ndlovu (67%). And those above the mean (i.e., high degr ee of group governance) included Marginalized (100%), Lwala le meetse (90%), Watervaal (7 5%), Makgofe (67%), and Makamotshe (73%) and Monyamane (64%), Marobala (60%), Fanang diatla (55%). Perceived Degree of Group Cohesiveness in Study Farms Group cohesiveness is a multidimensional co nstruct and both the task and social cohesiveness are considered th rough two major perspectives i.e., task and social cohesion (Carron et al., 1985). The two perspectives are: individual attractions to the group and group integration. The degree of per ceived group cohesiveness was m easured through the indices on individual attracti ons to group-social (ATG-S), individual attractions to group-task (ATG-T), group integration-task (GI-T), and group integration-social (GI-S). Results on individual indices are presented below.

PAGE 91

91 Individual attractions to group-social Of the five items comprising this index, only three were retained (Table 4-17). The range of the mean for these items represented mode rate to strong perceptions (M= 3.39 to 4.05). The standard deviation ranged from 1.02 to 1.29. Individual attractions to group-task Only one item was deleted from this index. Th e mean for all items represented stronger perceptions (M= 3.72 to 4.05), and th e standard deviation ranged from 1.12 to 1.17 (Table 4-18). Sixty percent of the respondents at Maboi 6 agreed with the ite m I am unhappy with my groups level of desire to succeed. Group integration-task Only one item was deleted from this index a nd Table 4-19 presents central tendency on the items that were retained. The mean for the items revealed close to st rong perceptions on these items ranging from 3.74 to 3.94. The standard deviation ranged from 1.12 to 1.19. Farms with the least proportions of respondents who agreed with the item our group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance included Makgo fe (50%), Marginalized (43%), Mahlamba ndlovu (34%), Maboi 6 (20%) and th is item had a wider standard deviation as compared to the others (SD= 1.39). Group integrationsocial Of the four items of this index, two were re tained. The mean for the two items ranged from 3.25 and 3.39, and the mean represented moderate perceptions on these items. The standard deviation was 1.20 and 1.30 (Table 4-20). Summated scores on perceived group cohesiveness Items on the individual indices of percei ved group cohesiveness were averaged and summated scores were compute d. The minimum and maximum scores were 24 and 60, and the

PAGE 92

92 range was 36. In Table 4-21, the tests for the equality of the means ( M = 44.91, t = -15.45, p < .000) was significant, whereas equality of variance ( F = 3.19, p= .07) was approaching significance. Frequencies of indi vidual summated scores in respective farms are presented in Table 4-22. Farms with high propor tion of summated scores below the mean (i.e. low degree of group cohesiveness) included Watervaal (75%), Maboi 6 (80%), and Mahlamba ndlovu (60%). Farms with high proportion of summated scores above the median (i.e. high degree of group cohesiveness) include Makamotshe (80%), Marg inalized (71%), Lwala le Meetse (70%), Marobala (60%), Monyamane (56%), Maboi 3 (55%), Fanang diatla (55%), and Makgofe (50%). Objective Three Describe the Variance Explained by Degree of Satisfaction with Benefits, and Degree of Group Governance on Degree of Perceived Group Cohesiveness Correlations between Variables Correlation coefficients with a negative sign are indicative of invers e linear relationships between variables i.e. when one increase, th e other decreases and the opposite is true for positive relationships, and correlation coefficients of zero represent non linear relationships. In Table 4-23, correlation coefficients ranged between low to moderate ( r = .10 to .43). Group cohesiveness had a low to mode rate and significant relationshi ps with degree of benefit ( r = .22) and degree of group governance ( r = .43). Degree of group governan ce had a low and significant relationship with degree of satisfaction with benefits ( r = .18). Regression Analysis Explanatory variables utilized in the regression analysis include degree of satisfaction with benefits, and degree of group governance. In Ta ble 4-24, regression analysis on perceived group cohesiveness was significant ( F = 17.45, p <.000). The degree of group governance ( t = 5.16, p < .000) was a significant predictor, and de gree of satisfaction with benefits ( t = 1.89, p= .06) was

PAGE 93

93 approaching significance. The multiple correlation (R) from the model is .45. The variance explained by the model was low (R2 =.20), and the adjusted pr oportion reduction in error was also low (R2 =.19). Multicollinearity was assessed through the tolerance values as well as the variance inflation factor (VIF). Tolerance values were close to 1; therefor e, there were no linear relationships among explanatory variables a ccording to Noruis (2003, p. 273). Also, the variation inflation factor (VIF) va lues were at least 1. Therefore, explanatory variables were not highly correlated with each other. Summary Nominal data were described both at the farm (n=13) and the individual le vel (n= 137). Measures of central tendency were used to su mmarize individual measures on the scale response type format items. Variation between low and hi gh degree of perceptions were explored by using T-test for the equality of m eans and variance. Linear regression was used to explore the relationship between explanatory variables and the response variable. Open coding was used to identify themes from other nominal data. Findin gs of this study are discussed in the following chapter, and recommendations and conclusions are also presented.

PAGE 94

94Table 4-1 Characteristics of study farms legal entities, land size, registered bene ficiaries, initial group sizes, and curren t group sizes Farm name Entity Land size (ha) n of registered beneficiaries n of initial1 group size % n current group size % Mahlamba ndlovu CPA 2240 398 300 75 72 24 Maboi 3 Trust 4073 300 62 21 44 71 Monyamane CPA 2320 201 50 25 30 60 Maboi 6 Trust 1565 180 90 50 5 5 Marginalized Trust 1210 137 30 22 15 50 Lwala le Meetse CPA 1655 126 110 87 51 46 Makamotshe Trust 1392 121 52 43 19 37 Marobala CPA 232 88 25 28 6 24 Watervaal Trust 324 59 17 29 8 47 Fanang diatla Trust 617 49 12 51 9 25 Thusanang Trust 85 45 9 20 2 22 Lehlabile Trust 59 43 18 42 7 39 Makgofe Trust 15 137 15 41 5 33 Note. Proportion of initial group size is com puted based on the number of registered be neficiaries, and curr ent group size is b ased on initial group. Current group sizes may include bo th beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. 1= Group size at farm occupation.

PAGE 95

95 Table 4-2 Income generati ng activities in study farms Farm Initial activities Current activity Marginalized Livestock, crops Cattle sales Lwala le Meetse Livestock, vegetables Cattle sales Makamotshe Livestock, fruit, guesthouse Guava, avocado, and cattle sales, guesthouse Maboi 3 Livestock, vegetables Cattle sales & Sand mining Fanang diatla Vegetables, chicken Vegetables Marobala Livestock, fruit, vege tables Sand mining & strategic partners Thusanang Chickens, fruit None Monyamane Livestock, crops Livestock Mahlamba ndlovu Livestock, chicken, crops Livestock, chicken, crops Makgofe Chicken, crops Ren ting out grazing land Watervaal Chicken, crops Re nting out grazing land Maboi 6 Livestock, crops None Lehlabile Chicken, fruit Strategic partner Note. Current activities may not include initial activities. Table 4-3 Age and level of education among respondents Demographic f % Sex Female 76 55 Male 61 45 Age 51-60 years or more 82 60 31-50 years 40 29 30 years or less 13 10 Education No primary 95 69 No high school 32 23 High school or more 10 7 Note. Nonresponses were treated as missi ng data when computing frequencies.

PAGE 96

96 Table 4-4 Other jobs held by individual members in farm groups Job f % Industry 77 56 Other 55 40 Professional 4 3 Note. Nonresponses were treated as missi ng data when computing frequencies. Table 4-5 Household composition for individual members in farm groups Household member f % Children 117 85 Spouse 34 25 Parents 18 13 Note. Composition may overlap. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing frequencies. Table 4-6 Other sources of income fo r individual members in farm groups Source f % Government grant 99 72 Other sources 45 33 Remittances 27 20 Note. Income sources may overlap. Nonresponses we re treated as missing data when computing frequencies. Table 4-7 Group positions held by individual members in farm groups Group position f % Regular beneficiaries 65 47 Committee members 36 26 Employees 36 26 Proxy beneficiaries 26 19 Note. Group positions may overlap. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing frequencies.

PAGE 97

97 Table 4-8 Days spent on the farm each week by individual respondents Days spent on farm f % 5-7 days 79 58 3-4 days 32 23 1-2 days 24 17 Note. Nonresponses were treated as missi ng data when computing frequencies. Table 4-9 Summary of items on the degree of support services provided Item n M SD Frequency of farm visits 13 3.00 1.47 Provision of information 13 3.00 1.73 Provision of advice 13 3.00 1.73 Note. Rating scale: 1= Never to 5= Always. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. Table 4-10 Effect of low and hi gh degree of perceived provision of support services in study farms Item f M SD SE p .000 Low degree of support 8 2.21 .89 .31 High degree of support 5 4.20 .69 .31 f = Frequency, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, SE= Standard error.

PAGE 98

98 Table 4-11 Summary of responses on de gree of satisfaction with benefits Item n M SD Importance of benefits 137 3.98 1.13 Satisfaction with benefits 137 3.21 1.21 Improved living standard for self 136 2.89 1.13 Improved living standard for others 131 3.01 .81 Group importance 137 3.68 1.21 Note. Rating scale: 1= Very few to 5= Too many, 1= Not satisfied to 5= Co mpletely satisfied, 1= Much lower to 5= Much higher, 1= Not important at all to 5= Very important. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing descriptive statistics. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. Table 4-12 Effect of low a nd high degree of perceived sa tisfaction with benefits Item f % M SD SE p .000 Low degree of satisfaction with benefits 61 45 13.18 2.63 .33 High degree of satisfaction with benefits 76 55 19.35 1.86 .21 Note. f = Frequency, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, SE= Standard error. Table 4-13 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived satisfacti on with benefits in respective farms Degree of satisfaction with benefits Farm Low High f % f % Marobala 5 100 0 0 Marginalized 6 86 1 14 Makamotshe 10 67 5 33 Maboi 3 12 55 45 27 Monyamane 13 52 12 48 Makgofe 3 50 3 50 Thusanang 1 50 1 50 Mahlamba ndlovu 4 27 11 73 Watervaal 1 25 3 75 Fanang diatla 2 22 7 78 Maboi 6 1 20 4 80 Lwala le meetse 3 15 17 85 Lehlabile 0 0 2 100 Note. Frequencies are based on th e number of respondents per fa rm. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing summated scores.

PAGE 99

99 Table 4-14 Summary of responses on degree of perceived group governance Item n M SD Involvement in decision-making 137 4.04 1.32 Involvement in problem-solving 137 4.31 1.17 Record keeping on expenditures 136 4.41 1.14 Record keeping on sales 137 4.41 1.13 Record keeping on all records 137 4.21 1.30 Benefit allocation rules 132 4.37 1.13 Equitable distribution of benefits 137 4.20 1.23 Note. Rating scale: 1= Never to 5= Always a nd 1=Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. Nonresponses were treated as missing da ta when computing summated scores. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. Table 4-15 Effect of low and high degree of perceived degree of group governance Item f % M SD SE p .000 Low degree of group governance 48 35 22.91 6.01 .86 High degree of group governance 89 65 33.50 1.69 .17 Note. Statistics are computed only on items retained during reliability analysis. f = Frequency, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, SE = Standard error.

PAGE 100

100 Table 4-16 Frequencies between low and hi gh degree of perceived group governance in respective farms Degree of perceived group governance Farm Low High f % f % Maboi 6 5 100 0 0 Mahlamba ndlovu 10 67 5 33 Maboi 3 12 55 10 45 Monyamane 9 46 16 64 Marobala 2 40 3 60 Makgofe 2 33 4 67 Makamotshe 4 27 11 73 Fanang diatla 1 11 8 89 Lwala le meetse 2 10 18 90 Marginalized 0 0 7 100 Thusanang 0 0 2 100 Lehlabile 0 0 2 100 Note. Frequencies are based on th e number of respondents per fa rm. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing frequencies. Table 4-17 Summary of responses on individual items of i ndividual attractions to the group-social Item n M SD I do not enjoy being part of the social activities of this group* 137 3.39 1.29 I am not going to miss the members of this group when I leave* 137 4.05 1.27 For me, this group is one of the most important social group to which I belong 137 4.02 1.02 Note. Rating scale: 1=Strongly di sagree to 5= Strongly agree. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. *Item reverse coded. Table 4-18 Summary of responses on individual items of i ndividual attractions to the group-task Item n M SD I am not happy with the amount of time I spend working in this group* 137 3.94 1.14 I am unhappy with the groups level of desire to succeed* 137 4.05 1.12 I do not like style of work in this group* 137 3.72 1.17 Note. Rating scale: 1=Strongly di sagree to 5= Strongly agree. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. *Items were reverse coded.

PAGE 101

101 Table 4-19 Summary of respons es on group integration-task Item n M SD Our group is united in tryi ng to reach its goals for performance 137 3.75 1.39 We all take responsibility for any poor performance/mistakes by our group 137 3.74 1.19 If members of our groups have problems during work, everyone wants to help them so we can continue working everyone in group helps 137 3.94 1.12 Members of group do not communicate freely about each persons responsibilities within the group* 137 3.83 1.19 Note. Rating scale: 1=Strongly di sagree to 5= Strongly agree. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. *Item was reverse coded. Table 4-20 Summary of responses on indi vidual items of group integration-social Item n M SD Our group would like to spend time together off work 135 3.39 1.20 Members of our group do not stick together after work* 135 3.25 1.30 Note. Rating scale: 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. Nonrespons es were treated as missing data when computing mean scores. M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. *Item was reverse coded. Table 4-21 Effect of low and high on th e degree perceived group cohesiveness Item f % M SD SE p .000 Low perceived group cohesiveness 59 43 38.77 4.71 .61 High perceived group cohesiveness 78 57 49.56 3.45 .39 Note. f = Frequency, M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, SE= Standard error.

PAGE 102

102 Table 4-22 Frequencies between low and high degree of perceived group cohesiveness in respective farms Degree of perceived group cohesiveness Farm Low High f % f % Maboi 6 4 80 1 20 Watervaal 3 75 1 25 Mahlamba ndlovu 9 60 6 40 Makgofe 3 50 3 50 Lehlabile 1 50 1 50 Maboi 3 10 45 13 55 Fanang diatla 4 45 5 55 Monyamane 12 44 13 56 Marobala 2 40 3 60 Lwala le meetse 6 30 14 70 Marginalized 2 29 5 71 Makamotshe 3 20 12 80 Thusanang 0 0 2 100 Note. Items are summated for perceived group cohesiveness. Nonrespons es were treated as missing data when computing frequencies.

PAGE 103

103Table 4-23 Correlations between variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. Sex 2. Education .06 3. Age .06 -.40** 4. Benefits .11 .32** -.23** 5. Governance -.09 .11 -.08 .18* 6. Group cohesiveness -.08 .09 -.02 .22** .43** Note. Correlation is signifi cant at .05 level (two-tailed) ** Significant at .01 level (two-tailed) Table 4-24 Regression analysis on perceived group cohesiveness Variable B SE t p Constant 27.82 3.07 8.99 .000 Degree of group governance .42 .08 .40 5.16 .000* Degree of satisfaction with benefits .26 .13 .14 1.89 .06** Note. Correlation is signifi cant at .05 level (two-tailed) ** Significant at .01 level (two-tailed).

PAGE 104

104 Attrition Turnover Figure 4-1 Group development processes that led to the evolution of cu rrent groups within the study farms Group formation Awareness creation Recruitment Generation of lists Initial farm groups Production activities Governance Conflict Autocratic leadership Poor resource management Disrupted systems Production activities Structures of governance Discontinued participation Current farm groups Interim structures of governance Poor economic conditions Limited support services Administrative processes Land settlement processes Land transfers Support services Grant machinery Production inputs Land Bank loans Regulation Constitutions Business plans

PAGE 105

105 Figure 4-2 Patterns of land use a nd participation in study farms Task performance Surrogate labor Employees o Beneficiaries o Nonbeneficiaries Group governance Collective labor Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries o Employees o Proxy beneficiaries Collective benefits Individual activities Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries o Tenants o Strategic partners Conformist Individual labor Individual benefits Beneficiaries Deviant behavior Individual labor Individual benefits Individual remuneration Farm maintenance Group formation

PAGE 106

106 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS This chapter explores the findings of the st udy as outlined in the previous chapter. The purpose of this study was to explore the degree of perceived group cohesiveness as well as the factors affecting group cohesive ness. The objectives of this study were (a) to describe perceptions of group development pr ocesses that led to the evolu tion of current farm groups, and the degree of support services provided (b) to de scribe perceptions of individual group members on the degree of satisfaction with benefits, th e degree of group governance and the degree of perceived group cohesiveness, and (c) to descri be the variance explained by the predictor variables on perceived group cohesiveness. Structural Charact eristics of Farms Membership vs. Participation in Group Activities Findings from the study revealed the preval ence of high turnover rates in study farms (Table 4-1). Turnover was attributed to various causes. It was appare nt that official status gained by beneficiaries through membership in redistri buted farms did not guarantee participation in group activities. In some of the farms, the pr oportion of beneficiarie s who moved to occupy farms was as low as 20%. Borras (2003) noted that only 18% of the redistributed farms in Brazil continued to be operated by benefi ciaries. Participation in group activities in the study farms can only be limited to those who had actually m oved to occupy farms and perform production activities, whereas those who never showed up are referred to as pa ssive beneficiaries. Therefore, defining current groups transce nds recognition based on official status, and requires actual participation in farm groups. Furthermore, nominal membership also refers to those beneficiaries who discontinued their participation on the fa rms. Carron (1980, p. 233) defined a group as characterized by purposive intera ction in goal directed and in terpersonal behavior, likewise

PAGE 107

107 McGrath et al. (2000) de fined groups as structured entities that emerge from the purposive, interdependent actions of individuals. According to Borass (2003), socio-economic stat us was used as the criterion for selecting beneficiaries eligible for land redistribution in South Africa. However, findings from this study revealed that recruitment and membership wa s based on open access and self-selection. One of the features of market-led redistribution is th at the actual request for land settlement is a prerogative of the eligible beneficiaries. In or der to achieve the require d group size, interested individuals had to recrui t others and in that manner, member ship was obtained through generated lists. In contrast, formation of groups in redist ributed farms of Colombia was reinforced through pre-existing groups that were ba sed on coincidence rather than on similarity of interest (Deininger, 1999). Passive beneficiaries in the study farms included beneficiaries who were employed elsewhere. Such beneficiaries held employment as civil servants and ot hers served in other sectors of the industry. Other pass ive beneficiaries were the elderl y and could not participate in farm activities. Women with family responsibil ities could not move to the farms that were located far from village dwellings. Other beneficiaries had left farms for other employment opportunities. This finding concurs with McCuster (2004) who observed that beneficiaries in redistributed farms in Limpopo Provi nce tend to discontinue their pa rticipation from the farms in search for other livelihood strategies. Nonetheless, group interviews revealed that widespread dissemination of information as well as raising awareness during se ttlement processes was not achie ved. This was especially true among beneficiaries who came from different vill ages or tribal authorities. Communication channels were not clearly identified, and prol onged administrative procedures prior to land

PAGE 108

108 settlement led to member attrition. Failure to achieve widespread dissemination of information also resulted in failure to regi ster certain segments of the targ et audience. These findings suggest that the ability for individuals to gain official status as regist ered beneficiaries was in part contingent upon the dissemination of info rmation about the program, thus prolonged administrative processes led to member attrition prior to land occupation. Some of the individuals who had been on the farms as employees for the previous owners were left unregistered. This practice overlooked the guidelines stipulated by the White Paper on Land Policy (1997, p. 9). Farms that combined indi viduals who had been on the farms either as former employees or tenants and new entrants experienced a challenge in building rapport. Conflict was rampant because of the temptation by the new entrants to treat those who had been on the farms previously in a subordinate manner. Similar instances were also observed in Brazil (Borras, 2003). Study farms with group participants who had b een on the farms as employees of former owners include, Makamotshe (93%), Marobala ( 75%), and Maboi 3 (68%). It is worth noting that current farm groups are comprised of both registered beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (Table 4-7). According to the legal framework of the farms, non-beneficiaries remain out of status, except for proxy benefici aries who represent passive be neficiaries. Zi mmerman (2000) cautioned for exercising care when se lecting eligible beneficiaries in order for land redistribution to be inclusive. Figure 4-1 give s an approximate schematic repres entation in chronological order of the events that led to the evol ution of current farm groups. The study revealed that non-benefi ciaries in current farm groups also served in leadership positions. Evidently, current groups have been redefined over time through processes of negotiation and bargaining. It has been apparent that membership in current groups has been

PAGE 109

109 legitimized through participation in group activitie s for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Therefore, membership as well as participa tion in current groups has transcended formal recognition and groups have evolved and developed as defined by those involved. Patterns of participation in current groups were indicative of the manner in which farm groups have evolved. The patterns based on part icipation in group activit ies as well as farm property use rights were appare nt. Findings revealed that th e boundaries with regard to participation in group activities as well as land use rights had been redefined. In some of the farms, both group-oriented use of land as well as individualized usag e had been intertwined (Figure 4-2). Passive beneficiarie s tended to perform exclusively in dividual activities, and these included seasonal maize cropping systems as we ll as access to grazing land for livestock. Therefore, property ownership and land use rights evolved to include co llective as well as individual performance of tasks. McCarthy et al. (1998) emphasized that collective action includes resources that combine both private a nd common ownership of pr operty. McGrath et al. (2000) asserted that as groups form, people, and their intentions, and resources become organized into a coordinated network of relati ons and the group is bound as a social entity. According to McGrath et al., groups eventually l earn from their experience and adapt to events occurring in their embedding contexts, t hus, groups are not st atic but evolve. English et al. (2004) differentiated between unitary and divisible task performance in groups. The current study illustrated that the fragme ntation of tasks into individual and collective arrangements was not feasible. Performance of individual activities tended to interfere with group activities. Furthermore, tendencies of inappr opriate access to uncontrolled grazing as well as harvesting of firewood coul d lead to the depletion of th e natural resource base. Such behavioral patterns were sources of conflict among land users. Passi ve beneficiaries particularly

PAGE 110

110 tended to deviate from the rules-in-use, theref ore, disrupting governance structures. Details on structures of governance ar e presented hereunder. Evolution of Governance in Study Farms Agrawal (2005, p. 3) indicated that governments have attempted in the past to incorporate co-users of common property resources into the wi der net of political rela tions, and new forms of regulation in communities were created. Agrawa l further asserted that governments had introduced new technologies in the form of decentr alized and increased pa rticipation by co-users in the management of common property resources (p. 7). In the case of redistributed farms, production resources were allocated in the fo rm of farmland, and the government sought to create employment opportunities an d contribute toward livelihood sy stems of indigent segments of the nation. As an innovation, redistributed fa rms were created as ne w entities that exposed farm groups to new forms of agricultural product ion. By using external service providers, the government provided rules and regulations to govern redistributed farms. According to the deeds of trusts reviewed in so me of the trust farms, the boards of trustees were registered as legal owners of farm prope rty. Trust farms were guided by a legal framework that did not permit flexibility as opposed to CPA farms. The need for farm plans and other codified documents such as constitutions were additional pre-requisites of land redistribution (Deininger and May, 2000, p. 13; Lund, 1996, p. 551) External service providers were contracted through a 9% planning grant that wa s built into the overall budgets allocated for respective farms by the government. Invariably across farms, constitutions and busin ess plans were meant to regulate the nature of both agricultural as well as group processes beyond land settlement. Evidence from the study farms points out that the creation of legal entities particularly in th e form of trust farms resulted in skewed distribution of power among group par ticipants. As a result, conflict was prevalent

PAGE 111

111 within farm groups, and this led to the disruption of task s performed as well as in the governance of the groups. A respondent said, we no longer use the constitution because it causes us to fight among ourselves. McGrath et al. (2000) asserted that the rules guiding collective action depend on initial conditions, subsequent situational factors as well as external conditions. Poor management of farm resources as we ll as corruption among me mbers of leadership resulted in disrupted group processes in st udy farms. In addition, poor governance and economic performance led to discontinued participati on by some of the group participants. Similar observations were made in Colombia where groups of beneficiaries did not have the capacity to resolve internal conflict and could not achieve common goals, and such problems led to the disruption of group struct ures (Deininger, 1999). In this study, turnover by members of initial farm groups further resulted in consequences that were deemed undesirable. Di scontinued participation particul arly by members of leadership whose names had been endorsed in official documents tended to constrain remaining group members. A study respondent said, .there is nothing we can do because we are requested to show the deed of trust in various places we consult for assistance. Currently, the legal framework of the farms does not permit deregistra tion of nominal benefici aries without consent. During June 2006, the Department of Agricultur e made attempts to deregister passive beneficiaries, but such were uns uccessful. A respondent said, it is not for the department to deregister beneficiaries but to provide support The legal procedures that are prescribed for deregistration of passive benefici aries present a daunting challenge According to Cartwright and Zander (1968, pp. 53-56), different stages mark the manner in which groups evolve. Carron (1982) maintained that the early stages of group development may be confronted with resolving problems relating to social cohesion much more so than at the later stages of group development.

PAGE 112

112 Furthermore, Agrawal (2005) noted that gove rnmental forms of governance for managing common property resources had often failed to achi eve sustainability. As a result, users of such resources tended to develop rules and provided g overnance structures that were locally derived. However, the effectiveness of such rules in re lation to the broader social context has been unclear (p.19). The present study revealed that members of curre nt groups tend to co-develop rules and regulations. Thus, current farm groups evolved and the structures of governance have been reinvented for the pur poses of internal use. The bulk of production inefficiencies experienced on the farms can be traced back to poor governance on the farms. It was apparent that those in leadership positions had become opportunistic and exploited othe r beneficiaries who seemed to occupy almost a subordinate position. Bettenhausen (1991) declared that esta blishing and maintaining cooperative work and group norms is essential to effective group pe rformance. Furthermore, Tuckman (1965) illustrated that groups evolve over time, and ne w group-generated norms may be established in order to ensure that the group continues to exist. Income Generating Activities in Study Farms Although, some of the farms had received support either in the form of loans from the Land Bank or the government to purchase machiner y, it was evident that the scale of production activities had declined fr om their origins based on current pr oduction activities (Table 4-2). An earlier study revealed that re distributed farms in Limpopo Province and those from the Western Cape generated revenues that were relatively higher in comparis on to other provinces (Deininger and May, 2000, p. 13). Interestingly, McCuster (2004) studied CPAs in Limpopo Province and observed little intensification of land use as well as inadequate performance of farm activities. McCuster acknowledged that the study had probably not allowe d adequate time in order for evidence on the economic progress of the farms to emerge.

PAGE 113

113 A challenge facing current groups has been managing limited income generally accrued over long periods of time. Group members shared income and little or none was saved for purchasing farm inputs. One respondent said, it is difficult to expand the scale of production because income is used mos tly for salaries and not inputs. Some farms were faced with the challenge of restarting production after a lapse in activity. Examples of such farms include Makgofe, Watervaal, Lehlabile, and Thusanang. One beneficiary said, we are just starting from the scratch in this manner. Given such evidence, farms had not been able to perform activities as stipulated according to the business plans de veloped for respective farms. Similarly, farm plans developed for redistributed farms in Brazil and Colombia were not used for purposes they had been intended (Borras, 2003). Six of the study farms had acquired debt, a nd three of these farms paid premiums periodically, whereas the other three could not afford to pay back the loans in any manner. Deininger and May (2000, p. 16) wa rned about protecting benefici aries of redistributed farms from bankrupt white farmers who some times en couraged beneficiaries to incur debt. Such evidence was raised during group interviews in so me of the study farms. Group participants in such farms indicated that they had been summon ed, and the farms could possibly be sold by the Land Bank. Bank loans were generally acquired by members of leadership who had discontinued their participation; yet the members in curr ent groups had to settle the outstanding debt. Furthermore, some of the farms had lost their equipm ent to lenders who confiscated equipment as collateral against the debt. Provision of Support Services Three of the study farms did not receive suppor t services at the tim e of the study, whereas six of the study farms received support services from academic as well as research agencies. These agencies provided technical support in areas such as animal husbandry and marketing.

PAGE 114

114 Tompi Seleka College of Agriculture continued to provide support in some of the farms, and the University of Limpopo was contracted by the Depa rtment of Land Affairs to provide entry level training to beneficiaries. Support services were provided periodically ( M = 3.00) and services were at times provided on a project basis. The sustainability of support services offered on a project basis may be prone to being questioned. It is questionable whether such an approach fosters an environment of learning through reinforcement of educati onal opportunities. Members of current groups rarely attended meetings where e ducational information was shared ( M = 1.88, n= 137). This finding concurs with Aliber (2003) and Aliber et al. (2006) concerning the limited provision of extension services. McCuster (2004) also reported limited tr aining offered to CPA farms. Furthermore, service providers who drafted farm plans did not have the responsibility to provide support for the long term (Deininge r, 1999). In addition, the need to coordinate the provision of post-settlement support was observed. Support services provided by the government on the farms did not necessarily involve extension services. For example, Makgofe built chicken houses from a grant provided by the Department of Health and Welfare, and gr oup members received food parcels from this department at the time of the study because the farm could not provide sustenance. The Department of Health and Welfar e also provided other services such as bookkeeping. Services provided varied between farms. It was noted that the provision of support services outside of the Department of Land Affairs tends to be an obstacle to providi ng effective support services in redistributed farms (Deininger, 1999). Only the Maboi 3 farm had received th e Comprehensive Support for Agricultural Programs (CASP) to improve the farm infrastr ucture, whereas Maboi 6 could not access the

PAGE 115

115 CASP grant due to the lack of collective effort Mahlamba ndlovu was allocated the remainder of the settlement grant to improve infrastructure a nd purchase additional farm machinery. All of the study farms within the jurisdicti on of Polokwane Municipality ha d applied for grants, whereas the farms in Molemole only became aware of the existence of said grants during this study. This was indicative of the discrepancy regarding dissemination of information between the two municipalities. Strategic partnerships were another way for the farms to mobilize resources from individuals with access to capital. However, thes e should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. One respondent stated, we dont want a wealthy person to come and take advantage of us. One of the issues tabled for discussion at the Po lokwane SLAG Farmers Cooperative meeting (1107-2006) was the concern about stra tegic partners who had taken over some redistributed farms, and beneficiaries had lost access to such farm s. Therefore, arrangements based on strategic partnerships had the poten tial either to enhance or hamper task performance in study farms. Testing for the equality of means was significant ( t = -6.16, p < .000). Five of the study farms from Molemole Municipality had a low de gree of support services, whereas four of the farms with a high degree of support were under the jurisdiction of Polokwane Municipality. Therefore, the perceived degree to which suppor t services were provided was higher on study farms that were located closer to the provincial headquarters than those that were farther away. In spite of the findings that support servi ces were only provided occasionally, respondents were satisfied with support services ( M = 3.60, n= 137). Although respon dents rarely attended meetings where educational information was shared ( M = 1.88), information was shared among group members at all times ( M = 4.44). Wittenbaum et al. (2004) asserted that the flow of information within a group could either cont ribute or inhibit group decision-making and the

PAGE 116

116 effectiveness of problem-solving processes. C onscious decision-making in collective action in part involves sharing of informati on (Poteete and Ostrom, 2003, p. 14). This section presented earlier experiences in study farms and the themes identified through content analysis were discussed. The following sec tion discusses results from the data collected at the individual level (n=137). Describing Current Farm Groups Composition of Groups Involving women in land redistribution was one of the pre-requisites of land redistribution as was stipulated by the White Paper on Land Po licy (1998, p. ix). In addition to the female beneficiaries, other women had become part of current farm groups either as proxy beneficiaries (73%) or employees (44%). Furthermore, group members who had joined farm groups for less than a year at the time of the study were pr edominantly women (75%). Thus, women did not always possess official status in farm groups. McCuster (2004) observed a high proportion of women in CPA farms in Limpopo Province. The majority (69%) of current group members were at least 51 years of age or older. Social welfare grants were provided to women at 60 year s of age, whereas males received grants at the age of 65. Depending on sex, respondents in this age range (i.e. 60 65) earned government grants. Furthermore, respondents with children below the age of 13 years also received child welfare grants. Although the majo rity of the respondents (85%) had dependent children, it was common for respondents to live with grandchi ldren, and also unem ployed adult children. Another important source of income was re mittances. Elderly res pondents with live-in grandchildren received remittances from the pare nts of said grandchildren who had migrated in search of employment. Although skepticism was expressed against the provision of welfare

PAGE 117

117 grants in South Africa (Aliber et al., 2006), it wa s observed that welfare grants provided to the elderly were an important source of inco me among the indigent (May, 2000, p. 25). Household composition generally included extended family members. Male respondents in particular had spouses who receiv ed welfare grants because wome n received grants earlier than men, and in some cases both spouses received soci al welfare grants. When asked to differentiate between group members based on socio-economic st atus, respondents identified either receiving remittances or receiving government grants by bo th spouses as indicators of being relatively better-off. Livelihood strategies of the respondents were ch aracterized by low levels of literacy as indicative of the kinds of jobs performed in th e past. Industry jobs included farm work, building and construction, and mining, with men mainly having performed such jobs. Women performed other informal jobs such as housekeeping, sale s persons in retail stor es as well as being entrepreneurs. A limited number of respondents performed professional jobs such as teaching, nursing, whereas some of the younger respondents had post high school education but were unemployed at the time of the study. Current farm groups were comprised mostly of the elderly, and a similar observation was made by McCuster (2004). Therefore, the pr edominance of the elderly among respondents may be a potential threat to the longevity of the current groups Bettenhausen (1991) noted that group processes and outcomes are affected by the degree to which group members are similar or bring unique qualities to the group. Resources that ar e deemed necessary in a group may include knowledge, skills, abilities, or tools that th e individual members bring to the group (Carron, 1980, p. 209). Therefore, the prevalence of low lite racy levels in study farms may not foster a synergistic environment. However, another sc hool of thought suggested that the belief about

PAGE 118

118 ones ability to successfully execute a given task does not depend on skills, but on the judgment (efficacy) of what one can accomplish with the skills (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Are Members of Current Farm Groups Satisfied with Benefits? Scholarship on task-oriented groups is based on the the ability to derive likely benefits by the members. Similarly, Thorp, Stewart and He yer (2005) claimed that group formation among the indigent has great potential for enabling the me mbers to reach their goals. However, Stocker (2004) argued that the outcomes of a given pr oject may not be as important as the values embodied in the project. Myatt and Wallace (2003) postulated that it is tempting to think that subscription to a particular group implies part icipation in collective activities leading to achievement of likely benefits. Yet, Veraghese and Ostrom (2001) argued that neither group membership nor group size will ensure the success of a given project or task. Experiences from redistributed farms are in line with the asser tion made by Sugden (1984). Sugden declared that there is no guarantee that likel y benefits will be achieved from collective action, even though access to all necessary tools requ ired may be guaranteed. McCuster (2004) observed that lack of productive use of farmland in CPA farms led to limited acquisition of benefits and discontinued participation on farms as members searched for alternative liv elihood strategies. In this study, the benefits that were acquire d by respondents as well as by the groups were deemed important. However, the living standards of group pa rticipants had not improved ( M = 2.89). Therefore, the contribution made by the farms to the livelihoods among the respondents was not apparent. A respondent stated, the farm sustains us when we produce and sell, so our past successes give us hope. This was indicative of satisfacti on with benefits not necessarily based on the condition of the farms at the time of the study, but previous achievements were sometimes considered and used as the basis for reflection by some respondents. Participants who had worked as employees for the previous owners often indicated that they were willing to

PAGE 119

119 persevere because it was possibl e to derive a living out of the farms as evidenced by their previous employers. Testing for the equality of the mean ( M = 16.60, t = -16.02, p < .000) and variance ( F = 5.54, p < .05) on the degree of satisfaction with benefits was significant (Table 4-12). Farms with high proportions of individual scores (Table 4-13) below the mean (i .e., low degree of satisfaction with benefits) were characterized in terms of sporadic sale of farm produce and remuneration, limited income generating activities, and lack of capital reserves. Income was also generated by non-agricultural activities such as sand mining from the rivers running through some of the farms. The farms in the low degree of satisfact ion with benefits cate gory include Marobala (100%), Marginalized (86%), Makamotshe (67 %), Maboi 3 (55%), and Monyamane (52%). Farms with high proportions of individual scor es above the mean were characterized by deriving benefits through various mechanisms and these included both individual and groupbased activities. Farms that practiced group-base d activities were differe ntiated in terms of ongoing production activities, presence of surrogate labor working on behalf of farm groups, and benefits accrued to both employees and othe r beneficiaries through a monthly salary. Group participants made contributions in some of the farms toward the salaries of the employees. Deininger and May (2000, p. 15) found that farms with beneficiaries making cash contributions had higher revenues as opposed to those without any contribution. In addition, some of the respondents performed exclusively individual activities. Thus, bene fits accrued to individuals. Performance of individual activi ties was indicative of an emerging aspect on land use rights. Both individual and group-based activities were combined in some of the farms. Although not a common practice, some of the group participants, mainly beneficiaries, with other employment commitments preferred pa ying for their working days rather than being

PAGE 120

120 physically present and contribu ting toward task performance. This practice guaranteed acquisition of benefits for such participants. This practice has raised conc erns in relation to the definition of groups based on interaction. Such pa tterns potentially distor t the structure, thus boundaries of the groups become ambiquous. Fa rms that constituted the high degree of satisfaction with benefits category include Lw ala le Meetse (85%), Maboi 6 (80%), Fanang diatla (78%), Watervaal (75 %), Mahlamba ndlovu (73%). The manner in which benefits were derived in study farms varied. The interface between group activities as well as indi vidual activities rev ealed patterns of land use rights, property ownership, and participation in gr oup activities. However, the ma nner in which individual tasks were performed either deviated or conformed to the rules of the gr oups. Performing individual activities tended to lower cooperative effort, a nd individual activities pe rformed in conjunction with collective activities resulted in conflic t in some of the farms. The Degree of Perceived Group Governance in Current Farm Groups Study findings demonstrated that current farm groups have evolved as reflected by patterns of membership, participation as well as land use rights that we re different from the initial arrangements. Farms can be divided into those wi th group activities only, as well as those with a combination of both individual and group activitie s. Members of current farm groups provided collective labor in group activities, whereas indi vidual activities were performed by beneficiaries who either obeyed or ignored from the rules of the groups. Measures of central tendency demonstrated strong perceptions with regard to group governance. However, possible differences were detected by testing for equality of means ( M = 29.79, t = -15.55, p< .000) and variance ( F = 59.45, p < .000) and the difference between low and high degree of group governance wa s significant (Table 4-15). Fa rms with high proportions of summated scores representing low degree of group governanace include Maboi 6 (100%),

PAGE 121

121 Mahlamba ndlovu (67%), Maboi 3 (55%). These farm s can be differentiated in terms of presence of individual activities, hetero geneity in terms of socio-economic status, limited cooperative effort, and part-time participati on by members of leadership. It was observed that heterogeneity resulted in asymmetrical access to resources in so me of the farms. Previous studies on collective action observed that social heterogeneity ca n lower cooperative effort (Dayton-Johnson, 2000; Myatt and Wallace, 2004). Nominal beneficiaries tended to demarcate la nd parcels to cultivate seasonal crops and such deviant behavior resulte d in conflict between those re maining on the farms. Social heterogeneity also resulted in conflict among thos e who remained on the farms. In addition to using farm property against the rules and regul ations of the farms, nominal beneficiaries vandalized farm property at times. Therefore, fa rms were confronted with challenges that were both internal and external. Within the groups, non-beneficiaries were not always involved in decision-making processes and this variability is apparent given the wider standa rd deviation on the item (SD = 1.32). However, respondents were more likely to be involved in problem -solving than decisionmaking (SD= 1.17). Respondents who were not al ways involved in decision-making processes expressed that the farm leadership requested th eir opinions on matters on ly when said leaders appeared to be in trouble. Wittenbaum et al. (200 4) claimed that the flow of information within a group either contribute s or inhibits group deci sion-making and problem-solving effectiveness. On the other hand, Katz et al (2004) asserted that interp ersonal relationships among group members will largely determine the flow of information and resources. In this study, variability in remunerating farm labor was symbolic of instances where nonbeneficiaries were generally remunerated only for the labor performed, whereas other in-kind

PAGE 122

122 benefits such as quantities of maize were allocated only to bene ficiaries. Such tendencies were raised as concerns by non-beneficiaries in th e groups. Respondents indicated skepticism about leadership behavior. During indi vidual interviews, illiterate re spondents in particular raised concerns regarding their inability to proofread written reports a nd other records for verification. Such suspicions led to redu ced trust in the leadership. Other concerns that were raised about memb ers of leadership we re the tendencies to participate on a part-time basis, whereas other group participants were present at the farms on a full-time basis. At times, members of leadership participating on a part-time basis were in charge of the allocation of farm res ources and were perceived as a hindrance to progress by those present on a full-time basis. Members of leadersh ip participating on a part-time basis promoted tendencies that relaxed the rules guiding the allocation of benefits in order to adjust for their limited contribution toward farm related activities. Therefore, part-time part icipation, particularly by members of leadership, had its own limitations Such tendencies were a source of conflict among group members. Other farms experienced conflict due to oppor tunistic behaviors among group participants. Opportunistic behaviors were in the form of lo afing, which was prevalent in farm groups that were attempting to resume pr oduction activities. Other partic ipants in farms with low cooperative effort were in the early stages of re-organizing themselves in order to initiate collective activities. Fo rms of deviant behaviors were appa rent among group members as well as non-group members. Such behaviors included overriding the rules for tenancy for grazing livestock, and unlawfully using farm machinery to perform in dividual activities. Conflict of interests between allocating resources for individu al activities and collective tasks was apparent.

PAGE 123

123 Farms with high proportions of individual scores representing high degree of group governance (Table 4-16) include Marginalized (1 00%), Lwala le Meetse (90%), Fanang diatla (89%), Watervaal (75%), Makamotshe (73%), Makgofe (67%), Monyamane (64%), Marobala (60%). These farms were characterized by contri butions toward farm expenses, increased group activities, and limited deviant be havior. On such farms, deviant or forms of opportunistic behaviors were penalized and rules and regulatio n were developed within the groups. Penalties such as substituting or paying for any missed day of work by group participants were imposed. Furthermore, group members were required to satisfy any past dues, including monthly contributions, before benef its were distributed. Other rules that were exercised in the st udy farms included a differentiated rate of remuneration for beneficiaries and non-bene ficiaries. Although non-beneficiaries were prioritized for remuneration, beneficiaries were generally remunerated at a higher rate than nonbeneficiaries. For non-beneficiarie s, duration of membership in th e group was used at times to determine the rate of remuneration. Therefore, involvement in group activities did not always guarantee equitable distribu tion of benefits. The Degree of Perceived Group Cohesiveness Larger scores on the scale represented st ronger perceptions of cohesiveness among group members. Carron et al. (2003) noted that cohesiveness is a positive group property and individuals who retain their member ship in a group are unlikely to consistently use all options of the scale. Carron and associates further assert ed that participants who perceived their group negatively were likely to di sengage from the group. The standard deviation demonstrated evidence that responses for some of the items were more dispersed around the mean than others Testing for the e quality of means ( M = 47.79, t = 15.45, p < .000) was significant, and the equality of variance ( F = 1.53, p < .07) was approaching

PAGE 124

124 significance (Table 4-21). Hardy, Ey s and Carron (2005) proposed th at the presence of cohesion as an assumption of shared beliefs does not impl y that all members of a group perceive cohesion in the same positive light. Hardy and colleagues further asserted that strong perceptions of cohesiveness might reduce the perceived cost of pa rticipation in successful groups rather than in unsuccessful groups. Shared beliefs among group members can be exp ected to be stronger in groups with more complex task interdependence (Ca rron et al., 2003). However, it has been suggested that overt behavior may not be consistent with the behavioral intent (per ception, beliefs and attitudes) of individual members (Alavi and McCormic k, 2004). Alavi and McCormick observed that cohesive groups generally en courage a positive atmosphere which is free from personal squabbles, members benefit from the group, and cooperation and overall performance is improved. It is worth noting that low cohesiveness (Table 4-22) can be attributed to differences based on performance of individual activities in study fa rms. Apart from co-ownership of property in one of the farms, there was virtually no collectiv e effort overall. The same applied to the farms with limited production activities at the time the study was conducte d. Therefore, fragmentation of activities in some of the fa rms was practiced. The use of surr ogate labor to perform activities on behalf of the group reduced inte raction among group participants. In some instances, beneficiaries contributing lit tle or no direct labor toward the activities of the farm also earned benefits. Therefore, the structure of the groups was not robust and the conceptualization of groups in this regard wa s distorted. Other benefici aries who had remained on the farms performed individual activities only. The study revealed that the presence of individuals may not be the only factor necessary for continued engagement, but overt behavioral

PAGE 125

125 practices should be taken into consideration. McGrath et al (2000) argued that groups are complex, adaptive and dynamic systems, and the systems develop and change over time. Farms with high frequency distribution of individual scores below the mean (i.e. low degree of group cohesiveness) include Watervaal (75%), Mabo i 6 (80%), and Mahlamba ndlovu (60%). It must be noted that farms with high propor tions of scores repres enting high degree of perceived cohesiveness were not without the challenges facing fa rms with low cohesiveness, but challenges were experienced to a limited ex tent. A concern that was expressed by some participants in relation to leadership behavior was lack of transparency on finances. Farms did not always have a system of reinvesting income made from enterprises such as cattle husbandry. As a result, group members were at times left with little or no activities to perform except for a few herders who were hired and stayed on the fa rms on a full time basis. Farms also experienced shortages with the water and power supply at the time of the study and this limited the ability to perform production activities. A respondent stated, we persevere because we have a vision and we will continue to participate Some of the farms operated under a system of clear guidelines and failure to adhere to rules led to penalties. Friedki n (2004) asserted that groups are cohesive when group-level conditions produce positive membership attitudes a nd behaviors, and interp ersonal interactions operate to maintain group-level conditions. Si milarly, Tuckman (1965) pointed out that groups evolve over time, and cohesiveness is devel oped when group members come to accept the group and the idiosyncrasies of other members. Tuck man further asserted th at the group becomes an entity by virtue of its acceptance by members, thei r desire to maintain and continue, as well as the establishment of new group-ge nerated norms to ensure the gr oups existence. The farms with high proportion of scores representing high degr ee of group cohesiveness include Makamotshe

PAGE 126

126 (80%), Marginalized (71%), Lwala le Meetse (70%), Marobala (60%), Monyamane (56%), Maboi 3 (55%), Fanang diatla (55%), and Makgofe (50%). Farm groups comprising of members who had been on the farms as employees prior to land redistribution had continued their engagement on the farms and continued to reside on the farm premises included Makamotshe (93%), Mar obala (75%), and Maboi 3 (68%). In addition, Lwala le Meetse and Monyamane al so had collaborations with the previous owners prior to land redistribution. All of these farms also consisted of a considerable number of kinships and some of them had joined farm groups as employees. Other farms showed moderate degrees of eith er of low or high cohesiveness. However, farms that may be categorized as success st ories under current circumstances are lumped together under a high degree of cohesiveness. It has been expr essed that high cohesiveness may be counterproductive to the effectiveness of th e group (Evans and Dion, 1991) In contrast, other scholars argued that high levels of cohesiveness may be desirable in that these levels facilitate better task performance and re duced conflict in the group (H ardy et al., 2005). Hardy and colleagues also observed that increasing social cohe sion could lead to the formation of cliques or social circles within the group. A reason for em ploying surrogate labor in the case of the study farms with larger groups was to ensure accountab ility. Therefore, the notion of groups within groups in this study was at times utilized as a m echanism that facilitates task performance. Factors Influencing Perceived Group Cohesiveness Regression analysis on percei ved group cohesiveness (Table 4-24) was significant (F= 15.21, p <.000). Group governance ( t = 4.68, p < .000) was a significant predictor of group cohesiveness, whereas the satisfaction with benefits was close to significance ( t = 1.89, p =.06). The multiple correlation (R) from the model wa s .45, and the model had low predictive power (R2 =.20).

PAGE 127

127 The degree of perceived group cohesiveness is symbolic of intentions by members of groups to remain. However, the po ssibility that intentions by gr oup members to remain in their groups will be influenced by governance and de gree satisfaction with benefits cannot be overlooked. Knox and Meizen-Dick (2001) pointed out that the factors that affect the resilience of collective action include among other things, th e importance of participation in relation to livelihood systems, the ability to organize and th e capacity to manage resources as well as the investment needed to make resources productive. Therefore, the ability by group participants to generate benefits that contribute toward their livelihoods as well as group processes in regard to governance will potentially determine the degree of cohesive ness of study farms. Summary The economic viability of study farms was hinde red due to poor management of resources and disrupted group structures th at led to high turnover rates. As result, various patterns of participation in study farms had emerged. Con tinued participation in study farms did not guarantee access to adequate suppor t services. The contribution to ward the livelihoods of those remaining in current farm groups was not appare nt. Governance within cu rrent farm groups was developed through naturalistic proc esses. However, interferences e ither by the actions of passive beneficiaries or opportunistic be haviors resulted in complex gr oup structures whose boundaries had become ambiguous. A statistical difference was detected between farms of low and high cohesiveness. Regression analys is revealed that group governance and satisfaction with benefits were both important factors. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in the following chapter.

PAGE 128

128 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Group Membership Most of the respondents in the current groups had reached the pension age range (60 for women and 65 for men), and th e livelihoods of these respond ents depended on government welfare grants. Low levels of literacy were prevalent. Members of current groups included both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Nonbeneficiaries did not possess an o fficial status, and these included proxy beneficiaries as well as employees. In some of the farm groups, there was an overlap between the positions held by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiarie s. Both beneficiaries and non beneficiaries were employed as farm wage laborers. Farm employees were differe ntiated between those w ho participated in the overall performance of group activities as well as those who provided surrogate labor. As a result, interaction among group participants can be defined in terms of group positions occupied in respective groups. Moreover, current groups can be characterized by the notion of groups within groups. Objective One Describe Perceptions on Group Development Processes that Led to the Evolution of Current Farm Groups, and the Degree of Support Services Provided Structural Characteri stics of Study Farms It was apparent that the stru ctural characteristics of farm s did not create an enabling environment for collective task performance. Due to disrupted group processes, other forms of land use and participation in group activities had evolved. Disr uptions in farm groups were indicative of group development processes that ha d occurred over time. Initial membership in farm groups was based on official status and membership did not guarantee continued

PAGE 129

129 participation in group activities. Approximately 85% of the registered beneficiaries were no longer part of current farm groups. However, tu rnover can be pinpointed to various stages of group development. Current farm groups can be differentiated from lists generated during recruitment prior to land sett lement. Only those beneficiarie s who actually moved to occupy farms after settlement had become part of farm groups, and the rate of turnover can only be estimated based on such individual s. It is also important to no te that the proportion of those remaining on the farms is approximate given various pa tterns of participation a nd land use. Current conditions on the farms can be traced back to specific events that occurred over time. Particularly in trust farms, legal entitie s resulted in asymmetric distribution of power between the leadership and other members of groups. As a result, poor farm management, and corrupt leadership behavior re sulted in the disruption of group processes (i.e. governance and task performance). Production Activities Invariably, the scale of produc tion activities on the farms had declined over time. Income generating activities varied in respective farms, and various strategies for remunerating farm labor were utilized. Farms w ith income generating activities earned benefits (generally monetary) sporadically. Provision of Support Services The provision of support services on the fa rms was somewhat plur alistic in nature. Although some of the farms had received governme nt support in the form of machinery and other kinds of inputs, there was an apparent lack of continuity in the provision of support services. Research institutions and other government departments occasionally provided support services. However, the project approach may not be sustainable. Lack of follow-up with government programs had created a sense of dist rust of government officials by respondents.

PAGE 130

130 Moreover, there was an apparent lack of coordination between government departments providing support services on the farms. Strategic partners provided assi stance to rejuvenate some of the farms that had collapsed. However, such arrangements did not always yield positive results and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Objective Two Describe Perceptions on the Satisfaction wi th Benefits, Group Governance, and Group Cohesiveness Satisfaction with Benefits Benefits earned on the farms were perceived as important. However, the living standards of group participants had not improved. A statisti cal difference on the degree of satisfaction with benefits was apparent. Farms with high proportion s of low scores on the degree of satisfaction with benefits were characterized by lack of limited economic activities, and sporadic remuneration generally earned af ter a long cycle of production a nd marketing. Farms with high degree of satisfaction with benefits performed income generating activities and regularly sent produce to the market. Performance of individual activ ities on such farms was at times permitted. The degree of satisfaction with benefits can be differentiated based on the mechanisms through which benefits were derived i.e. individual as well as co llective performance of tasks. Benefits were further differentiated accordi ng to group position. Employees were remunerated for the labor performed, whereas other benefits a ccrued to other group part icipants based on their official recognition as beneficiaries. Although the study included only those who we re present on the farms, contribution toward group activities was not always limited to physical presence and interaction among group participants. Such patterns of pa rticipation reflected the comple xity of group structures. As a

PAGE 131

131 result, it was difficult to define the boundaries and conceptualiz e groups given such patterns of participation. Group Governance It was apparent that current farm groups had e volved to establish condi tions that facilitated emergence of strong perceptions regarding group governance. The difference between farms with low and high degrees of group governance wa s significant. Groups in low governance farms did not always involve all group participants in decision-maki ng, and not all benefits were allocated to all group participants. This wa s particularly true for the farms with nonbeneficiaries. Performance of i ndividual activities encouraged tendencies to override rules-inuse, and this finding was made it difficult to treat group governance as a matter of internal processes. Therefore, governance in current groups was not limited to the dynamics inherent within groups, but was also confounded by the interferen ces due to land use patterns. As a result, governance on the farms transcended participatio n in group activities, but included aspects of land use rights, and thereby create d group structures with boundaries that have been difficult to define. This finding is in line wi th McGrath et al. (2000) who a sserted that groups might have unclear boundaries that distingu ish and connect them to the members as well as the specific context. Group Cohesiveness A difference was observed between low and hi gh degrees of perceived group cohesiveness. However, care was exercised in examining the lo w degree of cohesiveness scores. This practice is endorsed by the fact that behavioral intent may not be translated into overt behavior. Furthermore, a low degree of cohesiveness can be indicative of the charac teristics of farms and these are presented below:

PAGE 132

132 Group members performing individual activities. Group members having limited interactions. Individual and collectiv e activities interfacing. Passive beneficiaries perfor ming individual activities. Social heterogeneity leadi ng to low cooperative effort. Farms associated with a low degree of per ceived group cohesiveness were characterized by indicators that neither encourag ed continued performa nce of farm tasks nor interaction between group members. Such farms lacked mechanisms to advance collective oriented task performance. Such indicators posed a challenge to the concep tualization of groups in this study. Furthermore, indicators that emerged out of farms of low c ohesiveness revealed specifi c areas that could be targeted for support services. Farms with higher scores of group cohesive ness were characterized in terms of: Past history of work relationships and te nancy on the farm creating group identity. Kinships leading to participation in groups. Evidence of previous achievements resulting in motivation. Indicators characterizing farms with a high degr ee of cohesiveness were indicative of the manner in which farm groups had evolved over ti me. Farms with group members who had been employees of the previous farm owners had remained. Past history of group members may transcend work related experiences but also can be traced back to the attachment to the farms developing from generations of workers who resi ded on the farm premises. Other groups were comprised of family relations and thus, had a high degree of perceive d cohesiveness. Other nonfarm related indicators also included membersh ip in a common group prior to participation in farm groups. Farms groups with high cohesiveness also had non-beneficiaries as part of the groups. Furthermore, indicators ch aracterizing high cohesion farms are in part key factors that could guide future redistributive programs. Th ese findings do not assume that high cohesion farms were not faced with the constraints that were observed on low cohesion farms. However,

PAGE 133

133 indicators in high cohesion farms may be consid ered as possible guides to structure future redistributions. Caution should be taken when differentiati ng study farms based on either low or high degrees of cohesiveness. Possible bi ases in the form of social desirability and acquiescence must be considered. It is possible that non-beneficiarie s, in particular partic ipating in group activities may have contributed to social desirabili ty. Groups on study farms had emerged out of naturalistic processes of group deve lopment, and it was possible for participants to create a false impression about their groups. Furthermore, study groups represented a cohort that is possibly different from other redistribute d farms. Therefore, generaliza bility of the study findings is limited. Objective Three Describe the Variance Explained by Satisfaction with Benefits and Group Governance on Group Cohesiveness The behavioral intent of group members to remain in their groups has a futuristic orientation. However, according to the study fi ndings, the degree to which group members are likely to remain in the groups was influen ced by group governance and to a certain degree, satisfaction with benefits. Ther efore, the two aspects of grou p processes cannot be isolated, though their contributions may vary. Governance in current groups has been confronted with challenges due to patterns of participation and land use. Although evidence pointed out that rules had emerged and were developed to facilitate governance in current gr oups, limited flexibility regarding the legal entities may have been an impediment to progressive group processes. Interference by nominal beneficiarie s seemed to be detrimental toward internal group processes, and performance of individual activities was disruptive to management of resources.

PAGE 134

134 Redistributed farms are mainly task-oriented, and the governance of gr oups is intertwined with task performance. Ther efore, failure to address governance and advance production activities may lead to zero cohesiveness (i.e., groups may cease to exist). However, the predictive power of these factors on perceived group cohesiveness was low. This observation can be attributed to overemphasis on internal dynamics in regard to group processes, and the failure to account for other intervening va riables such as deviant behavior and patterns of participation. This limits internal validity of the study. Neve rtheless, these findings ne cessitate the need to develop context-specific operational variables in future studies. Fu rthermore, statistical analysis was used to determine causal relationships betw een specific factors a nd group cohesiveness. The statistical aspect of the study doe s not intend to override the pr actical significance of the study. Hence, it is acknowledged that other factors such as demographics are important. Moreover, negative items on the group envir onment questionnaire (GEQ) were difficult to interpret and this problem was observed by othe rs. Such a concern led to the development of revisions on the instrument by Estabrooks and Carron (2000). Although such difficulties were encountered in circumstances where the instrume nt was self-administered, negative items were challenging to pose as questions during the quest ion-and-answer proce ss and these challenge persisted during data entry and analysis. Nevertheless, the study addressed construct va lidity by adapting an instrument that had been standardized (i.e. GEQ), and the deletion of items from the instrument due to low inter-item correlation coefficients further improved internal consistency. An Alpha coefficient of .66 was an acceptable level for an exploratory study. Ther efore, the measures employed in this study were reliable. This study paves the way for furthe r explorations of small group research in other redistributed farms.

PAGE 135

135 Implications It can be deduced from the study findings th at the implications of the study are far reaching. South Africa is a nation in its democratic infancy and the issue regarding the ability of the nation to socially construct itself re mains a daunting one. A lthough the goals of land redistribution are multi-pronged (White Pape r on Land Policy, 1998, pp. 26-28), findings from the study demostrate that social inclusion may no t be easy to achieve. If land redistribution is aimed at making productive resources accessible, th en it is desirable for the beneficiaries to remain on the farms. Current study farms were characterized by high tu rnover rates, and the impact toward the livelihoods of group participants remaining on the farms was not apparent. Therefore, continued par ticipation on the farms has not prov ided incentives for those remaining. The importance of land redistribution in South Af rica cannot be underestimat ed. However, it is apparent by a large margin that land redistribution has not achieved the desirable level of impact. It appears that South Africa is reinventing the wheel with regard to the implementation of land reform. It has previously been reported that successes have been limited in Sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world (Bor ass, 2003; Griffin et al., 2002). The study included farms that were settled unde r SLAG. The thirteen study farms were a population of the surviving farms in Capricorn Di strict, and the other sixteen were shutdown for reasons that may not be easy to unearth due to limited documentation. Two of the farms were not included in the study because only one benefici ary on each of the farms had remained. Other patterns of individual occupation of farms that were meant for groups were also observed on the farms near the study farms. Therefore, redistribu ted farms should be monitored and evaluated in order to mitigate opportunistic behaviors by self -selected elites who tend to occupy farms in solitude.

PAGE 136

136 It can be argued that SLAG was discredited due to its inadequacies. However, massive resources were invested in the program and th at must be considered. In addition, current redistributions are also characterized by gr oup-based acquisition of farmland (Hall, 2004, p.2939). A point worth noting is that turnover in group settings is inevitable because it is natural for groups to develop in a manner that would cause some of the members to disengage as it was shown by Tuckman (1965). Formation of groups is not a short-term objective for reasons that are associated with naturalistic pr ocesses of group development. Th is observation does not intend to endorse over-reliance on turnover as an indicator of successes and failures. Instead, the current conditions on the farms raise implications that go beyond the context of the farms. An intriguing question emanating from these stud y findings is whether land redist ribution is an effective tool for addressing issues related to rural development. Another question that remains unanswered within policy-making circles is whether it is worthwhile to invest public re sources on the few participants who remain on the farms. Although not to a desirable extent, bene ficiaries as well as non-benefi ciaries have continued their participation on the farms. The lack of flex ibility regarding the current framework may potentially discourage continued participation fo r group participants who remain out of status. Furthermore, passive beneficiaries whose sole in terest is to perform i ndividual activities are a threat to group-oriented task performance. The need to develop mechanis ms that would protect group participants cannot be overem phasized. It may not be surprisi ng to learn that the manner in which study farms turned out to be was not anticipated. However, it must be realized that members remaining in current farm groups represent those who are committed to continue their par ticipation. There is a need to retain younger participants in farm groups given the predominance of older participants. This can only be

PAGE 137

137 achieved if incentives are made to attract younger participants. Th erefore, future studies should investigate the forces of attraction among partic ipants in redistributed farms and beyond. And future redistributions could be struct ured around such study recommendations. The lessons of land redistribu tion are crucial to the development of future land policy. The effectiveness of land redistribution will yi eld limited outcomes if farms cannot be operated profitably by the beneficiaries. Therefore, ther e is a need to view land redistribution from a collectivist perspective. This approach should be viewed as a process that occurs along a continuum. Failure on one of the links will result in failure in the entire chain. Implementation processes as well as the outcomes should be em braced by the nation as a whole, rather than placing blame on those responsible for facilita tion (i.e., Departments of Land Affairs and Agriculture). Land redistribution was designe d to relieve some of the social challenges facing the nation yet evidence points to the deficiencies asso ciated with the program. Future studies relating to food security and the possibili ty of a decline in food production trends in the country since the institution of land redistribution would be intriguing. It is also questionable if land redistribution displaces poor civilians from th eir livelihood strategies such as farm labor. If beneficiaries of redistributed farms do not remain on their farms, how is the country going to provide for such beneficiaries? These are complicated questions. Ho wever, they have long-term implications for social cohesion in the nation. Furthermore, a que stion that may needs ca reful consideration is whether or not South Africa has a coherent rural development strategy? It is acknowledged that the ge neralizability of this study is limited. However, insights generated from this study are sound. Failure to address challenges facing current farm groups allocated under SLAG may result in similar trends in future redistributions. This necessitates a

PAGE 138

138 comparative analysis of LRAD as well as SLAG farms. Exploring perceived group cohesiveness should be extended to LRAD farms as well as other groups organized around agricultural production. Other conceptual frameworks such as the th eory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as well as techno logy acceptance model (TAM) offer potential tools to widen the understanding of other aspects of redistributed farms. Self-efficacy among participants in redistributed fa rms can be explored to determin e the confidence level needed to successfully perform activities on the farms. These theoretical constructs are applicable and can also be explored with the admini strators of land redistribution gi ven the set target of allocating 30% of farmland by 2014. Recommendations Future Research 1. Patterns of collective action should be differe ntiated from group formation based on task performance. The conceptual framework of groups in redistributed farms should be clarified. 2. Operational definitions of group cohesivene ss that are specific to the context of redistributed farms should be developed. 3. Given the cyclical nature of group cohesiveness, a longi tudinal study design should be employed. Causation may be easier to detect with such a design. 4. Other factors that influence perceived group cohesiveness sh ould be explored based on operational definitions and standardi zed measures should be developed. 5. Probability sampling techniques should be employed in order to increase the generalizability of future study findings. 6. Research should focus on developing indicators of the economic as well as environmental sustainability of redistributed farms. 7. Although there was no evidence of economic progr ess in most of the study farms, the influence of group cohesiveness on performance should be explored in future research.

PAGE 139

139 Practitioners 1. Support services on redistributed farms are wa rranted, and extension services should be strengthened. The study revealed specific areas that can be ta rgeted for support and these included: a. Access to the market. b. Management of farms. c. Leadership in farm groups. d. Ownership of property and legal rights. 2. A separate division designated to the support of redistribut ed farms within government departments should be established in order to ensure accountability. The study revealed that remaining group members did not have reliable contacts within government departments. 3. Coordination of support services provided ei ther by research and academic institutions or government departments is essential. Policy 1. The emphasis on access to land by land redistri bution should be differentiated from the creation of task-oriented groups. Formation of groups may not be a short-term objective. Legalization of farm groups should be perf ormed at later stages of group development and this might prove to be an effective censoring mechanism. 2. In the case of future land redistributions, beneficiaries should be given an opportunity to opt either for group formation or for indivi dual activities as thei r basis of operation. 3. Beneficiaries should be given an opportunity to renew their st atus periodically and failure to do so should result in loss of status. The legal frameworks should be made flexible in order to accommodate group participants joining groups at later stages. 4. Beneficiaries should be provide d with assistance in the development and adaptation of rules and regulations, and assistance s hould be offered in farm management. 5. Non-beneficiaries in current groups should be awarded official and s ecure status in the same way as rightful beneficiaries. 6. Robust mechanisms to protect remaining group members particul arly from nominal beneficiaries should be implemented. Summary Findings from the study illustrated that the land redistribution program has achieved less success than had been anticipat ed. Study farms operated under marginal conditions and high

PAGE 140

140 turnover rates were prevalent. Such findings hold implications for the country in its endeavor to integrate civilians in the wider socio-political context. Although manifested at the micro-level, implications from the study raise qu estions that relate to the ability of the country to foster social cohesion in the long-term.

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL NOTICE

PAGE 142

142

PAGE 143

143 APPENDIX B CRONBACHS ALPHA COEFFICIENTS Reliability Statistics on suppor t services provided (n=13) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .912 .914 3 Reliability Statistics on Satisfa ction with Benefits (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .707 .705 5 Reliability Statistics on Group Governance (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .848 .850 7 Reliability Statistics on Perceived Group Cohesiveness (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .668 .670 12 Reliability Statistics Individual At tractions to Group-Social (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .576 .573 3

PAGE 144

144 Reliability Statistics Indivi dual Attractions to Group-Task (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .524 .524 3 Reliability Statistics Gro up Integration-Task (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .510 .502 4 Reliability Statistics Gro up Integration-Social (n=137) Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .657 .659 2 Reliability analysis on degree of satisfaction with support services Item n Alpha if item deleted Our group is satisfied with the support services provided 136 .28 I have attended meetings recently 136 .22 The information we obtain from meeting/tour is useful 114 .37 Our group shares information obtained from meetings/tours 134 .23 Our group expands production with proceeds from sales 137 .32 Note. Reliability coefficients were com puted through Cronbachs Alpha and inter-item total correlation coefficients. Nonresponses were treated as missing data when computing Alpha. Items are reported as individual measures.

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTATION Questionnaire Schedule to be admi nistered to the leaders of Questionnaire No. 01 Schedule # ________ Date and Time _______________ Name of Farm: _____________________ Name of Respondent: _____________________ Sex M / F 1. I would like to begin to ask you about whet her this farm is a Trust or a CPA? (Specify) ___________________________ 2. Is this farm restituted or redistributed? ________________________________ 3. What leadership position do you occupy in this group, are you a (Check appropriate box) 1. Chairperson 2. Secretary 3. Farm Manager 4. Treasurer 5. Other (Specify) _______________________________________ 4. Are there any committee members who left the farm? Yes____ No___ 5. If YES, were you part of the former committee? Yes____ No___ 6. How many beneficiaries are pr esently on the farm? _______ 7. How many are: (Specify number) 1. Males ______ 2. Females ______ 8. Are there beneficiaries who never showed up at the farm? Yes____ No___ 9. Are there beneficiaries who sent th eir next of kin to the farm? Yes____ No_____

PAGE 146

146 10. Are there beneficiaries who sent employees to the farm? Yes____ No___ 11. If YES then whos responsible for their remuneration? Explain________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 12. Are the any part time beneficiar ies in the group? Yes______ No______ 13. If YES how many part-time beneficiaries are: (Specify number) 1. Males ______ 2. Females ______ 14. Are there any passive benefici aries on the group? Yes______ No______ 15. Do passive beneficiaries return during pe ak times of work to work as wage laborers? Yes______ No______ 16. Are there employees in the group? Yes______ No______ 17. If YES how many are: 1. Males ______ 2. Females ______ 18. What is the criterion for allocating bene fits between employees and beneficiaries? Explain ____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 19. How many people are in the committee? Check that apply 1. No committee 2. 1-2 3. 3-4 4. 5-6 5. 6-7 6. > 8 20. How many of the committee members are: Men____ Women _____

PAGE 147

147 21. Is the chairperson of th e group male or female? Male ___ Female ____ 22. How many committee members are outside members? (Specify) ______ 23. How often does the committee meet? 1. No meeting schedule 2. Weekly or more frequently 3. Biweekly (every two weeks) 4. Monthly 5. Bimonthly (every two months) 6. Less than 6 times a year 7. Other (Specify) ______________ 24. Has the committee been reelected so far? Yes______ No______ 25. If YES/NO what are the reasons fo r reelections? Explain_____________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 26. How often does the group meet? 1. No meeting schedule 2. Weekly or more frequently 3. Biweekly (every two weeks) 4. Monthly 5. Bimonthly (every two months) 6. Less than 6 times a year 7. Other (Specify) ______________ Point of direction: The enumerator will pause and remind the participant once more that he/she is participating in the study vol untarily and it is his/her right to stop or withdraw some of your answers 27. Which organization(s) is the farm affiliated to? List all 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

PAGE 148

148 28. Is any of the beneficiaries on the farm holding any leadership position in such organization(s)? Yes____ No___ 29. Who represents the farm in such orga nizations? Specify current portfolio 1. Chairperson 2. Secretary 3. Farm Manager 4. Treasurer 5. Other (Specify) _______________________________________ 30. Is there a strategic partner on the farm? Yes____ No___ 31. If YES how have you benefited from this partnership? Explain _____________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 32. Which organization(s) provide support services to the farm? Check all that apply 1. None 2. Ministry of agriculture 3. Land Affairs 4. Land Bank 5. Professionals university 6. Cooperative 7. NGO 8. Ministry of health 9. Ministry of labor 10. Farmers from other farms 11. Other (Specify) _________________ 33. What kinds of services do service providers provide? List all according to service provider Service provider Type of service provided

PAGE 149

149 34. Rank the three most important services prov ided to the farm (1 being the highest and 3 the least) 1. 2. 3. Point of direction for the enumerator: In or der to help the respondent comprehend the question(s), a step ladder with FIVE steps wi ll be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visu al cue for the participant In the NEXT SIX questions, Indicate on a scale of 15 how often do: (Write appropriate number) 1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Often 5. Always 35. Service providers visit the group ________ 36. Service provides information to the group ________ 37. Service providers provide a dvice to the group ________ 38. Service providers provide finances to group ________ 39. Group accesses implements and other equipment ________ 40. Group members contact service providers to seek information or advise_______ 41. Are you aware of the program calle d either CASP or Mafisa? Yes____ No___ 42. If YES how have you benefited from these programs? Explain ________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 43. Is the farm recommended for revitalization? Yes____ No___

PAGE 150

150 44. Have you got a Land Bank loan on the farm? Yes____ No___ 45. Are you able to service the loan? Yes____ No___ 46. What is the most common means of cont act between service providers and the group? Check all that apply 1. Telephone 2. Cell phone 3. Visits to farm 4. Visits to service providers office 5. Other (Specify) __________________ 47. Is there a telephone on the farm? Yes________ No___________ 48. How far is the nearest office of the most important service provider located? Check number according to importance of service provider 1. 10 -50Km 1. 50-100 Km 2. 100-150Km 3. 150-200Km 4. >200Km 49. What is the name of the n earest town to the farm? __________________ 50. How far is the nearest town from the farm? Check appropriate box 1. <50Km 2. 50-100 Km 3. 100-150Km 4. 150-200Km 5. >200Km 51. Where do you purchase farm inputs (Seeds, fe rtilizers, pesticides, etc)? Check all that apply 1. Cooperative 2. Extension agents buys for the group 3. Department of agriculture purchases inputs 4. Rental car delivers inputs 5. Dont know 6. Other (Specify) ________________ 52. How far is the market where you purchase farm inputs? Check appropriate box

PAGE 151

151 1. <50Km 2. 50-100 Km 3. 100-150Km 4. 150-200Km 5. >200Km 53. What time of the year do you sell produce? Specify according to commodity Name of commodity Name of Market Time of sale 54. How is produce transported to th e market? Check all that apply 1. Vendors/pick up trucks come by 2. Extension agent(s) takes produce to market 3. Transport agency 4. Other (Specify) _________________________ 55. What kinds of machineries or equipmen t are there on the farm? Specify number 1. Tractors ______ 2. Ploughs ______ 3. Trailer ______ 4. Water pump ______ 5. Electricity transformer ______ 6. Other (Specify) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 56. Are there any machineries or equipments that are broken down? Yes______ No______ 57. Did the group purchase implements with the grant? Yes______ No______ 58. What is your source of water? 1. Borehole

PAGE 152

152 2. River basin 3. Other (Specify)_______________________________________________ 59. Are there beneficiaries keeping their cattle on the farm? Yes______ No_____ 60. What other individual activities do be neficiaries do on the farm? Specify 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 61. Do beneficiaries with individual activitie s bring their own equipment or use those of the farm? Specify _________________________________________________ 62. What are rules for using farm e quipment for individual activities? Yes______ No_____ 63. Do you rent out land for liv estock grazing? Yes______ No_____ 64. Do tenants bring along their ow n employees to the farm? Yes______ No_____ 65. If YES how do tenant(s) pay for the service? Explain________________________ 66. How many villages are represented on the farm? Specify _______ 67. Is any of the chiefs represented v illages one of the beneficiaries? Yes______ No_____ 68. Does the farm have any relations with the traditional authority (TA)? Yes______ No______ 69. If YES what kinds of services does the TA provide? ________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

PAGE 153

153 70. Is there a counter claim against this farm? Yes______ No______ 71. If YES, what incidences of conflict resulted due to the counter claim? List all incidences 1. 2. 3. 4. Also, enumerator will remind the participant once more that he/she is participating in the study on voluntary basis and therell be no tangible benefit that will accrue to the participant And, the participant will be advised that he/s he can withdraw any of the responses that he/she provided, but otherwise the info rmation will be kept confidentially To conclude, the enumerator will thank th e respondent for her/his participation and ask her/him if she/he have questions for the enumerator

PAGE 154

154 Discussion guide for Group Interviews Schedule No. 02 I started off by explaining the IRB prot ocol to the participants and remind them that their participation is voluntary. Per mission was sought from the participants concerning the use of an audio tape. 1. I then reminded the participants about th e number of registered beneficiaries and to find out how were there on the farm (this information was obtained from national data base on land reform) 2. How were group members contacted or how did you get to know about this group? Who played what role of formi ng the group as well as liaise with the Department of Land Affairs? In what ot her ways have group members contributed to the formation of this group? 3. So, I would like to ask about the process th at led to the selection of the committee o what criterion was used for select ing individuals to occupy respective portfolios o What was the mandate of leaders and the time frame for occupying the office? o What other responsibilities did the initi al leader have outside the farm? 4. After settlement of the farm, when did the farm become operational? o What kinds of activities did you star t off with when you started working on the farm? o How did you manage to acquire capit al (money, machinery) that was needed to kick-start a ny activities on the farm? o What kind of participation was expected from the members and how did it occur? The moderator reminded the participant once mo re that they were participating in the study on voluntary basis and therell be no tangible benefit that will accrue to them And, the participant were advised that they co uld withdraw any of the responses that they had provided, but othe rwise the information would be kept confidentially 5. What kind of enterprises are currently there on the farm? How has the group expanded production on the farm? o Have you carried on with the same ente rprises since the beginning? If not, why not? o What enterprises are relatively new on the farm? o Has proceeds from sales enabled you to expand your production? o Is access to finance relatively easier now than the time when you started? o When did you employ workers? What was the motive for employing workers?

PAGE 155

155 o How do you remunerate peoples work? Beneficiaries? Please specify any changes that occurred over time 6. What are the rules that y ou are currently using in the groups? Do you still use the same ones that you started with? o If YES, explain how this was decided o If NO, explain reasons why o Are there by-laws in the group? How ar e these used? And how were these rules-in-use developed when did you start using the rules 7. There are now so many of you remaini ng on the farm when did you start noticing that other group me mbers were disengaging? o What would you say were the reasons for their disengagement? o Would you cite any specific events that led to disengagement? Please specify occurrences associated with discontinuance 8. What would you say are the reasons that led you (group members), remaining on the farm to date not to disengage? 9. What are your perceptions about passive members of the group? o Do you still regard these as part of the group? o If YES/NO, what are the reasons? o Do you think passive members have th e right to use land for any purpose (cropping, livestock keeping)? 10. Are there any group members present w ho once disengaged a nd returned back? o Why did you decide to return to the group? 11. What can you tell me about the current members of the group in terms of group functioning or rath er group culture? o What is your opinion concerning yo ur membership in this group? o How do you see yourselves as a group, five years from now? To conclude, the moderator thanked the par ticipants for their time and participants were asked they if she/he had questions for the moderator

PAGE 156

156 Questionnaire Schedule to accompany Likert Scale (GEQ) Questionnaire No. 03 Schedule # ________ Date and Time _______________ Name of Enumerator _____________________ Name of Farm: _____________________ Name of Respondent: _____________________ Sex M / F 2. So, I would like to begin by asking you about the position you occupying on this group (Check that apply) 1. Chairperson 2. Secretary 3. Treasurer 4. Regular member 5. Employee 6. Other (Specify) _____________________________ 3. How long have you been part of this group? Check that apply 1. 3 6 months 2. 6 12 months 3. 12 18 moths 4. 18 24 months 5. More than 2 years 4. So, what kind of a job you had right befo re you became a beneficiary on the farm? Did you work as a: 1. Government official 2. Farm worker 3. Worked at a retail store 4. Housekeeper 5. Other (Specify) _____________________ 5. What other jobs did do before you join ed this group? (List them below) 1. 2. 3. 4.

PAGE 157

157 5. 6. Are you part of any other group except for this one? If YES, List all 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. What was the aim of the group(s)? List according to the order specified in 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. What position did you hold in the group? Sp ecify name of group and position held 1. Chairperson 2. Secretary 3. Treasurer 4. Regular member 5. Other (Specify) _________ 9. How many days do you currently spend on the farm each week? 1. 1 2 days 2. 3 4 days 3. 5 6 days 4. 7 days 10. Do you currently live on the farm? Yes____ No___ 11. If YES do you live in the farm house? Yes____ No___

PAGE 158

158 12. How often do you commute/visit your home village? Check that apply 1. Every day 2. Once a week 3. More than once a week 4. Once every two weeks 5. Once a month 6. Less than once month 13. Are there rules for visiting home on the farm? Yes____ No___ 14. If you are one of the beneficiaries, are you one of the employees of the former owners? Yes____ No___ 15. If YES have your responsibility changed since the past? Yes____ No___ 16. If YES please explain the type of change __________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 17. How has being part of this group be nefited you? Check all that apply 1. Food for the home 2. Cash income 3. Learning new farming techniques 4. Meeting new people 5. Other (Specify) ____________________________ 18. Rank the most important benefits acquire d through membership in this group (With 1 being the highest and 3 the least) 1. 2. 3. 19. How important are the benefits that you acquire from membership in the group? Check appropriate box 1. Not important at all 2. Somewhat important 3. Fairly important

PAGE 159

159 4. Important 5. Very important 20. How satisfied are you with the benefits acq uired due to membership in the group? Check appropriate box 1. Not satisfied all 2. Dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Completely satisfied 21. What are the other sources of income in your household? Chec k all that apply 1. Remittances 2. Child support grant 3. Support grant for the elderly 4. Health support grant 5. Pension fund from former employment 6. Other (Specify) ____________________ 22. How old are the dependents in your household? Check all that apply 1. 0 15 years 2. 15 30 3. 30 45 4. 45 60 5. 60 75 6. Other (Specify) ________________________________ 23. How are you related with the depe ndants? Check all that apply 1. Children 2. Grandchildren 3. Aging mother/father-in-law 4. Other (Specify) ________________________________ Point direction for the enumerator: In orde r to help the respondent comprehend the next couple of question(s), a step ladder w ith FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visual cue for the participant

PAGE 160

160 24. On a scale 1-5, how would you rank your standa rd of living now as compared to the time you joined this group? Check appropriate box 1. Much lower 2. Slightly lower 3. About the same 4. Higher 5. Much higher 25. How many people in this group do you think come from the same wealth level (Indicate appropriate number) _______ 1. Very few 2. Few 3. About the same 4. Many 5. Too many 26. On a scale 1-5, how would you rank the standa rd of living for othe r people in this group now as compared to the time you jo ined this group? (Indicate appropriate number) _________ 1. Much lower 2. Slightly lower 3. About the same 4. Higher 5. Much higher 27. How can you describe the richest pe rson in your group? List at least THREE Descriptive possessions Rich Poor Point of direction for the enumerator: In or der to help the respondent comprehend the question(s), a step ladder with FIVE steps wi ll be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visu al cue for the participant

PAGE 161

161 28. On a scale 1-5, how important is be ing part of this group to you? 1. Not important at all 2. Somewhat important 3. Fairly important 4. Important 5. Very important On a scale of 19, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly disagree and 9= Strongly agree ). Check the most appropriate number 29. How many people in this group are your: (Write appropriate number below) 1. None 2. 1 3. 1-2 4. 2-3 5. >3 a. Relatives _____ Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeither Agree/ disagree Agree Strongly Agree Individual Attractions to the group-Social 1 2 3 4 5 I do not enjoy being part of the social activities of this group I am not going to miss the members of this group when I leave Some of my best friends are on this group I enjoy other activities more than team activities For me, this group is one of the most important social groups to which I belong

PAGE 162

162 b. Neighbors from home _____ c. Friends from home _____ d. Friends that established on the farm _____ 30. Do you have either relatives or frie nds in farms nearby ? Please specify____________ ________________________________________________________________________ Point of direction for the enumerator: In or der to help the respondent comprehend the question(s), a step ladder with NINE steps wi ll be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visu al cue for the participant 31. On a scale of 19, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly disagree and 9= Strongly agree ). Check the most appropriate number Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeither Agree/ disagree Agree Strongly Agree Individual Attractions to the GroupTask 1 2 3 4 5 I am not happy with the amount of time I spend working in this group I am unhappy with my groups level of desire to succeed This group does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance I do not like the style of work in this group I am not happy with the amount of time I spend working in this group

PAGE 163

163 Point direction for the enumerator: In orde r to help the respondent comprehend the next question(s), a step ladder with FIVE steps will be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visual cue for the participant 32. On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you w ith the support services provided to the farm? Check appropriate box 1. Not satisfied all 2. Dissatisfied 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Completely satisfied 33. In the past 2 years, how many times did you attend a meeting/tour where relevant information was avai lable? Check appropriate box 1. None 2. Once 3. Twice 4. Three or more 34. On a scale of 1-4, how useful was the information gained from meeting/tour Check appropriate box 1. Not very useful 2. Somewhat useful 3. Quite useful 4. Very useful Point of direction for the enumerator: In or der to help the respondent comprehend the question(s), a step ladder with FIVE steps wi ll be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visu al cue for the participant In the next COUPLE of questions, indicate on a scale of 1-5, how often does the group perform to the following (Write appropriate number) 1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Often

PAGE 164

164 5. Always 35. Share information gained from meetings/tours ________ 36. Keep records on expenditures ________ 37. Keep records on sales of produce ________ 38. Keep records on all the things you do ________ 39. The group sticks to the rules for allocating benefits ________ 40. Group members participate in decision-making _________ 41. Group members participate in problem-solving _________ In the NEXT question, Indicate on a scale of 15, how do you feel about the following statements (Write appropriate number) 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 42. Benefits from group are the same for all members _________ 43. The group expands production with proceeds from sales _________ 44. What level of education did you complete? 1. < Grade 7 2. < Grade 12 3. Grade 12 4. > Grade 12 5. Other (Specify) _______________________ 45. If I may ask you, based on the following cat egories what is your age. Check the relevant box 1. <30 years 2. 31 40 years 3. 41 50 years 4. 51 60 years 5. > 60 years

PAGE 165

165 Point of direction for the enumerator: In or der to help the respondent comprehend the question(s), a step ladder with FIVE steps wi ll be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visu al cue for the participant 46. On a scale of 19, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly disagree and 9= Strongly agree ). Check the most appropriate number Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeither Agree/ disagree Agree Strongly Agree Group Integration-Task 1 2 3 4 5 Our group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance We all take responsibility for any poor performance/ mistakes by our group Our group members have conflicting aspirations for the groups performance If members of our group have problems during work, everyone wants to help them so we can continue working Members of our group do not communicate freely about each persons responsibilities within the group

PAGE 166

166 47. What is the name of the village where you come from? (Specify name) ________________________________________________________ 48. What ethnic group do you come from? Check that apply 1. Bapedi 2. BaVhenda 3. BaTsonga 4. Other (Specify) _______________ Point of direction for the enumerator: In or der to help the respondent comprehend the question(s), a step ladder with NINE steps wi ll be drawn either on paper or the ground and will be used as a visu al cue for the participant 49. On a scale of 19, how do you feel about the following statements (1= Strongly disagree and 9= Strongly agree ). Check the most appropriate number To conclude, the enumerator will thank th e respondent for her/his participation and ask her/him if she/he have questions for the enumerator Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeither Agree/ disagree Agree Strongly Agree Group IntegrationSocial 1 2 3 4 5 Members of our group would rather work on their own than work as a group Our group members rarely socialize together Our group would like to spend time together off work Members of our group do not stick together after work

PAGE 167

167 Reflection Statement after Pre-Testing At conception, redistributed farms of South Africa were modeled to represent systems that are typical in commercial farming. It was be lieved that such idealized system s could operate under highly mechanized conditions and that the fa rms could contribute a great deal towards the livelihood systems of beneficiaries through large scale oper ations. It was also believed that the farms could have positive exte rnalities by creating economic opportunities for unemployed rural dwellers. Of particular importan ce, redistributed farms were se tup in the form of collective ownership of farm land, ther eby creating common property re sources owned by groups of beneficiaries. However, it became apparent at the onset that models of redistributed farms were rarely known to the target audience (subsistence farmers and rural dwellers). Therefore, the government then moved to encourage new co-owners (group members) of land to a dopt business plans and constitutions that were drafted by service providers (consultants). This poin ts our attention to the very fact that the government ch aracterized redistributed farms in a very precedented manner. The government seems to have made assumptions with regards to the manner in which farms could be operated. Also, the gove rnment seems to have believed that group ownership of land will yield similar results as former owners who generally owned land as family enterprises. Therefore, it remains important to investigate the extent to wh ich the idealized systems have been operationalized with respect to both govern ance and functionality. Th is study attempts to investigate actual experiences of be neficiaries remaining on the farms. This study argues that ideal farming conditions could not be operationalized and that beneficiaries operate under farmi ng conditions that were not idea l in terms of farm capital as well as group governance. Without ideal farming cond itions it can be argued that beneficiaries of

PAGE 168

168 redistributed farms have moved to reinvent th e farm systems. With that said, groups in redistributed farms could be faced with the cha llenge of maneuvering and forging ways in which they could operationalize the farms with minima l resources. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate the availability of physical resour ces on the farms as well as the outcomes from production activities. This would determine th e extent to which benefits due to group membership contribute to livelihood systems of individual members. When groups were first set up, membership to the groups was based on open access, whereas the size of the groups was directly equivale nt to the cost of any particular farm willingly offered in the land market. However, high turn ov er rate is probably indicative of poor economic returns on the farms. On the other hand, it can be argued that beneficiaries remaining respective groups have specific characteristic s that enable them to become farmers of this type. And this warrants investigative measures. It is therefore necessary to ponder questions that relate to the socio-economic characteristics of the group members remaining on the farms. This study argues that the quality of support serv ices provided on the farms is part of the production equation and the degree of satisfaction with se rvices provided determines the extent to which production operations co uld be effected. In addition, th e presence of outside support will determine whether farms acquire necessary farm capital, therefore effecting production activities and benefits acquired from farm thereo f. However, inasmuch as it is imperative to acquire farm capital in order to engage in farm ac tivities, access to the market as well as meeting the market requirements for good quality produce, is yet another dimension that determines the extent to which farms can be viewed as a sour ce and a means of acquiring desired benefits by individual group members.

PAGE 169

169 On the other hand, it can be argued that service providers further influence the manner in which the groups function to a cert ain extent. Through the use of th e prescribed c onstitutions and business plans, the nature of group decision-ma king as well as problemsolving processes is confounded. Therefore, it can be argued that the pres ence of service providers bring another power dynamic into the groups, be it in terms of e ither constitutions, busine ss plans, or any kind of farm capital that could be provided. Therefore, the nature of group dynamics inherent in the groups is a function of both internal as well as external forces. Th e presence of external influence will also determine the extent to which indi vidual members are recognized and included in various activities of the farm. Group cohesiveness is defined as the tende ncy for a group to stic k together (Carron et al ., 1985). Therefore, it is cruc ial to determine perceptions of individual group members to determine the extent to which current group members are likely to remain on the farms. Although group cohesiveness is centered on func tionality as well as the governance of the groups, reasons for sticking together will dete rmine whether the farms contribute to the livelihoods of individual members and the extent to which individual members are recognized (the inclusiveness) wi thin respective groups. On the other hand, it can be argued that current group members evolved over time to develop group culture. Howeve r, given the cyclical nature of group cohesiveness, it is important to trace the history of the groups to determine appare nt trends in group membership and the reasons thereof. This would in turn id entify specific events in respective groups as evidence of either continuance or discontinuance in the groups. A timeline will then be used to determine the history of the farms.

PAGE 170

170 Before Pretest Review Session: Instruments were Revised based on: repeated questions clarify meaning of questions clarify scalar-response format questions identify incomplete questions identify irrelevant guidelines/correct correct misstated instructions translate English terms into the vernacular Sepedi direct tr anslations may not work revise question numbering Reverse code scalar-response questions Deleted question on whether members have b een part of other groups in the past Questions were judged based on the con ceptual framework underpinning the study Post-pretest revisions Re-look at quality of support services o instead of using information over and over again, use support services and ask them to specify the kinds of support take out the question on who pr ovides support for individual interviews but leave that for leaders because it is repeated on both questionnaires if theres any support, then ask individua ls, how satisfactory are the services take the question on ranking of support serv ices to the questionna ire for leaders another question to add in the Questionna ire for leaders is whether group uses constitution or by-laws leave this for the timeline for individuals, ask if they have dependent s at home and relative age, the relationship delete the question on what kind of inform ation was shared during meeting, but ask how useful was the information delete question on how likely does group use rules for allocating benefits move benefits same for all members from lik elihood to strongly agree or disagree I had to add an item on ethnicity on individual ques tionnaires and access to the market this study will not obtain a representative samp le but some cases that can situations in the farms I had to add a question on whether the farm was under a counter claim or not o Counter claim implies that the minist ry of land affairs allows another group/community to launch a claim towa rds that same farm (i.e. a farm already claimed) The question on possessions that are sym bolic of wealth, ask it in terms of within the group not any place else The question on ethnicity, ask it in terms of : among the ethnic groups represented in this group, which one is the most dominant, followed by which one? Delete how do members commute to farm/village its a redundant question Add a question on how important are the benefits and

PAGE 171

171 How satisfied are members with benefits I deleted questions on People in this group get along well, Th ere is a lot of cooperation in this group, Our group has many conflicts, they seem to repeat GEQ Deleted the question on the main current fa rming activity moved it to the timeline Added degree to which group members pa rticipate in decision-making and Group members participat e in problem-solving

PAGE 172

172 Conducting Research in Limpopo Province: Ex citements, Frustrations and Lessons Drawn Conducting research is often idea lized as a process th at can be formulated before hand and prior to heading for the field. The researcher should be in a position to identify and clarify constructs and all variables of interest in the study. Th is prepares the rese archer to be in a position to bridge the gap between theoretical c onstructs and real life experiences based on the data collected (Rubbie and Babbie, 1993). Actually, this forms th e basis of conducting research and all other processes should be centered on this same point. However, the dynamics as well as the context within which research is conducted may make it difficult to plan according ahead of time. The dynamics of conducting fieldwork may vary from one setting to the other. Data collection in struments may not always be useful under certain circumstances. And because of such reasons, the researcher should be prepared to make observations and make changes accordingly. And th ats the reason why pre-testing exercises are imperative. Pre-testing helps one to identify res earch instruments that are most effective under certain circumstances. Making an entry in the research setting My experiences in this regard were not alwa ys as exciting. Gaining entrance to the farms was not an easy undertaking. Entry to the farms in cluded aspects of establishing contacts with government officials who are working with the sa me farms. Officials either provided telephone contacts for the farms or they took me to the farms and sometimes gave directions. Identifying farms started through conversations with extension agen ts and they would indicate which farm they thought was viable and were still operational, and those that were shut down. And extension agents would express their approv al based on which farm would be best for the research. This in itself, proved to be misleading in the end. Extensi on agents have a track record of the farms but they did not know what was actually going on the farms at that moment because they spend a

PAGE 173

173 long time without visiting the farms. There isnt much of provision of extension services on the farms and as a result, extension agents were not always aware of the progress made on the farms. Therefore, it was also beneficial for me not to establish contact wi th district exte nsion agents but most of contacts were limited to only one the extension officers whose responsibility was to work with redistributed farms. The chairperson of Molemole farmers Associati on also helped to me to visit other farms. And he expressed his preference for farms that we re operational as compared to those that he regarded as shut down. A couple of farms that I visited with him were shut down but some of them werent. But I had to insist and went to th e farm and prove that for myself. And they also give you a picture that may be misleading at the end of the day. And I ended up including two more farms in my study that my contact persons regarded as non-operational. I came to discover later that the farms mainly operated with funds from the outside either through strategic partnerships that were established. The other aspect of entering the farms was on approaching beneficiaries on the farms and introducing the study. Other farms made it easier to approach them a nd introduce the study to them whereas others werent. The leaders of th e farms became the contact persons on the farms. And such persons become an intermediate c ontact between the other beneficiaries and the researcher. After introducing myself to the co ntact person on the farm, I left behind consent letters and asked them to share the information with other beneficiaries. The consent letter was translated and so both versions in cluding English were given to bene ficiaries. I would then either return to the farm or make a phone call in orde r to find out if beneficiaries consent that I go ahead with my study.

PAGE 174

174 Other leaders on the farms were open to the st udy and made it easier to continue with the study. Something interesting is the manner in wh ich leaders of the farms would involve other beneficiaries during my visits. Other leaders would encourag e beneficiaries to speak up during meetings with everyone and beneficiaries would express their concerns and also ask questions. The most common question beneficiaries would as k was how will we benefit from your study? On the one hand, beneficiaries expressed concer ns about the many people who go to the farms and make lots of promises yet nothing follows th rough. Based on that, I had to be frank with the beneficiaries and tell them that I have got no tangible benefit fo r them and that I was a student and not representing any organiza tion whatsoever. I told them that land redistribution is a program that the government continues to implement and that they continuously seek ideas as to how they could possibly tweak the program. I made it known to them that the results of my study will be presented to them as well as the gov ernment. But the government has an absolute prerogative to consider the results. In general, tension on the fa rms looms large when you first arrive and people definitely look at you as a stranger. As the researcher, I had the responsibility to make myself known and to indicate that I did not have any intensions to ma ke any promises except for expressing that I was a student and all I needed was to learn from their experiences. And because I didnt panic, beneficiaries told me that they would let me conduct my research because I opened up with them and did tell them that I was a student. One old lady in one of the farms said our little hands lift up many of you to top professi onal possessions, but you forget about us as soon as you reach there. And such words are indicative of the exploi tation that these people experienced in the past. However, such scenarios can be interpreted either way. On the side of government officials or any service providers collabor ating with the govern ment dont have control over bureaucratic

PAGE 175

175 processes. As a result, various assignments are not translated into actual program implementation in the end. Another explanation can be that gov ernment employs different service providers to handle certain aspects of a program. At the end it is possible to find that a number of service providers were involved in one program and account ability may be a difficult task to perform. Therefore, many programs initiated by the go vernment fall through the cracks and that disappointed beneficiaries and they reacted by clo sing up their world. I had to watch out as the researcher because beneficiaries tried to bargai n with me by playing a guilt trip, which may be well justified. But this obviously weighed down on me. But this was one of the challenges I encountered and I had to decide to give these peop le room to express their concerns and be frank. At the end, I appreciated the level of political consciousness by group participants because it showed that theyre concerned a bout their lives and they would definitely not be on the farms if they had something better to do. But the farms meant life to them and it is their responsibility to make clear to anyone going there that they mean business and are left to fend for themselves. On the other side, no matter how much I e xplained to leaders of the farms about my intentions to eventually conduct both group and individual interviews, the leaders had assumed that I would not return to talk to other participan ts since it took me at least two weeks or more to return to each farm depending on the appointment schedule I had with individual farms.. By interviewing leaders of the farms first didnt no t only allow me to better understand the farms but it also gave me a ch ance to draw closer to th e rest of the beneficiarie s without being seen like I was invading their space. It had taken me some tim e to eventually connect with the rest of the group participants. Leaders who were not confident about their l eadership positions felt somewhat threatened by the time I conducted individual interviews. One leader on one of the farms once told me that

PAGE 176

176 he would lock me out of the farm if I had plans to return and I came to realize later that their most recent meeting on that farm did not give a g ood image of the leadershi p. It was this leaders defense mechanism to keep me away from othe r people by threatening to keep me out because he knew that I would soon find out should I had continued to talk to the others. But the same leader was very welcoming when I made my first visit to seek permission to conduct the study. He even told me that I wouldnt leave without collecting any information since Id made such a long trip to visit with them. The leader eventually asked the other beneficiaries to excuse us after theyd consented that I can co ntinue with the study and I went ahead and administered the questionnaire for leaders. Beneficiaries on one farm fought at the time I arrived to request them to grant me permission to conduct the study on the farm. The fight broke up and everyone disowned their assumed positions. But just before I departed, I cam e to realize that the chairperson didnt want to accept the consent document because he coul d neither read nor write and that seemed to intimidate him. He finally accepted the document he said that the document can only read him. I later came to learn that people may have differe nt ways to communicate information to you. But my immediate reaction was I wasnt ready to deal with something like that and thought I probably will not return to the fa rm anymore. I called the farm after a couple of weeks and the chairperson told me that I was welcome to conduc t my study. This taught me that not all people will receive me in the same way some were more open and some were not, depending on the nature of group dynamics at that time. Also, I came to learn that I only had to do what I was there for and didnt have to pay any attention to anything else like squabbles in the group. Some of the leaders became somewhat withdr awn with time because they realized that I was beginning to learn about how they conducted themselves. For example, I visited this one

PAGE 177

177 farm several times after I called and asked for an appointment and also confirmed the appointment but I could not find the leader when ever I went to the farm until I decided to go ahead and conduct the group interviews. That wa s another way that other people used to sabotage my research. I was more appreciative at the end because I even had much more information about this leader that I wasnt aw are of. And the leader sh owed disapproval of my prerogative the next time I went to the farm. But at the end, I knew I wasnt there to make friends with anyone and also aware that the individual particip ants had to consent in order for me to conduct the study and any beneficiar y had the right to deny me th eir consent, so I went ahead and did my work. But I couldnt acc ess the business plan for that pa rticular farm because of the same reasons. And this is yet another reason I was important for me to connect with everyone else who were not in leadership positions becaus e I was able to proceed with my study despite other people. Some of the leaders on the farms can go to the extent of lying especially during informal conversations, but the conversation that I had with other partic ipants as well as the extension agent in the Department of Agriculture helped me pick up on those false impressions. Individual interviews Beneficiaries did not always reveal specif ic information about each other during individual interviews. For example, I realized in about three interviews that some of the participants had defects such as hearing impairment, and probably learning disabilities. This was frustrating during the intervie ws since I didnt know what was going on. This was in itself a limitation to the study because I didnt have co nfidence in such responses, I wondered whether they understood me or not. This could be an over statement but for example, a leader on one of the farms asked me to sign up the consent form on his behalf and somehow his responses were generally off track. And this was something tricky to deal with because I had to pose the question

PAGE 178

178 again after listening to his res ponse and this led to lengthy interv iews for such a respondent. It was also evident that some beneficiaries felt intimidated by the questions and probably felt they couldnt answer the questions. But part of the e xplanation could be because respondents did not always pay attention to the question and they woul d tell me what I wanted to hear. This meant that as a researcher with the best interest in the interview, I had to listen very carefully and follow the interview in order to be able coun ter question when they mention a contradictory statement. Beneficiaries would often at times raise othe r issues separate from what I was asking them about and some of these issues were importa nt and interesting. As a result, I was caught up between administering the que stionnaire and listening to their stories, and this resulted in lengthy interviews. However, some bene ficiaries would take advantage of your time to raise their own concerns based on selfish reasons. So, the entire process starting when I first entered the farms and all the information I gath ered during the process became handy during times like these. Giving rides to beneficiaries was another participant observation stra tegy I used and this gave me a chance to ask about some issues that were s ensitive. However, participants at times took advantage of me and caused me to deviate from my trips, particularly on the way to the farms and I would end up spending a lot of time trying to reach the farm and I never reached the farm on one of the days. As a result, my time at the farms was redu ced and the only way I could mitigate that was to tell them that it was too cos tly for me to go out to the farms and not accomplish my work for the day. Because participants would even go to the extent of attending to other things as soon as they reach the farm and forget about my interests was frustrati ng. Visitors on the farms included people from various governmental agencies as we ll as financial institutions. It was after such

PAGE 179

179 experiences that I came to learn establishing c ontact with the rest of the participants was important. Other wise I was at time s left by myself and I basically had no one to talk to when the contact person (i.e. th e leader) gets busy with other things. Withdrawing of the study The process of establishing ra pport with the beneficiaries to ok quite some time and it was so based on reasons that were well founded. Bene ficiaries on the farms always had people who came around to conduct their work and also made promises, but such promises never followed through. On the other hand, leaders on the farms we re generally the contact persons and the other participants probably did not expe ct anyone to talk to them sin ce most people talked to the contact person. And so this took me some time to ev entually be in talking terms with the rest of the participants. I would walk over to their work setting when I got to the farm and greet them and talk about anything. And eventually I was able to take pictures and this proved to be the most effective way to connect with them and I took the pictures back to the farms in my subsequent visits. This was a good ice breaker. And the partic ipants started seeing me as someone who was there to socialize and do some thing with them, no ma tter how little it was. Another strategy I used was to buy participants little tokens such as bread and juice when I went to the farms. I would make it a point that I begin by gree ting them whenever I vi sit the farm depending on their work setting. And build ing the rapport made it easier for me to conduct individual interviews because beneficiaries were at ease an d they would also ask me to interview them. However, the withdrawing study seemed pre-mature (I think I was beginning to enjoy myself on the farms). This was either a good or not a very good thing. The more I become comfortable, I

PAGE 180

180 saw myself beginning to involve in the issues on the farm and took sides. This was a signal that it was time for to withdraw the study. Also, I went to the farms to bid them goodby e at the end. But the timing wasnt very good since it was close to Christmas and most pe ople had started going home and so I couldnt find most of the participants by the time I left. I was disappointed beca use I had promised the participants that I would info rm them when I was leaving. Another thing that made me feel like th e withdrawal was premature was because participants kept on playing a gu ilt trip on me by saying that I w ould also disappear in the same way as others did. But I later came to realize that the participants had forgotten that I was only there for some time and that I would leave by the end of the year. And I could sense their disappointment but I had to leave. This left me in a dilemma that made me think it wasnt my intention to disappoint them. Bu t the reality was that the time and money allocated for the field work can only go so far. This also brought me as a researcher to a poi nt when I started to think how much data was enough. But for the sake of avoiding a biased view and becoming too involved with the affairs in the groups, it was safe for me to withdraw the study. Methodological considerations The situation on the farms had forced me to make to consider making some adjustments particularly on the data collection instruments. Sampling had become a challenge since only 13 farms were identified, so all of the 13 farms we re included in the study. Also, farms with less than 10 participants were included. Participan ts on the farms were interviewed depending on their availability. Beneficiaries responsible for task s such as herding cattle were not easy to get hold of because they woke up early in the morni ng and went into the woods and can be anywhere

PAGE 181

181 within a 4000 ha farm, for example. I came to realize that participants had various responsibilities and conduc ting observations at a task setting with all the beneficiaries was not going to be possible. Group interviews were not always possible to conduct with the minimum number of people required in a focus groups interviews sett ing. For example, participants had to finish packing guava fruit for shipping by the end of the day and the participants couldnt leave their tasks to attend to my study. But ev en though they knew that they ha d a load to ship out on that day, participants they couldnt advice me to come on another day. Given the economic implications of traveling to the farms, I had to conduct group interviews with fewer participants even in farms with large enough groups at times. And the same happened in case other visitors came around or participants had other commitments. They wouldnt devote adequate time to me even with scheduled appointments. This meant that I had to return to the farms on another day. Group interviews were quite informative a nd I came to understand the histories of the farms. However, inasmuch as group interviews were appropriate for understanding farms better, it was not always possible for beneficiaries to open up about certain occurrences since the perpetrators were also part of the interviews. On e of the beneficiaries advised me to use another mechanism to better learn about the farm histor y. This was a farm with a guesthouse that was open o anyone as along as they paid, so I went and stayed at the guesthouse for a couple of nights. This gave me sometime away from the uni versity and I could reflect on my work. I also used this time to engage in informal convers ations and a whole lot of issues surfaced. Using participant observation as one of th e strategies for data collection accommodated extra information that I noted at later stages. Each visit to the farms yielded new information that I had not heard about before, and so the stories c ontinued to unfold. I paid informal visits to the

PAGE 182

182 farms whenever I was in other farms nearby and su ch visits enabled me to drop by the farms and visit with the participan ts at the time they were relaxed during the lunch hour. This at times meant visiting with the participan ts who mainly resided on the farm s while others had left for the day. This was again a good chance to talk about va rious issues they woul dnt normally talk about in the presence of others.

PAGE 183

183 REFERENCES Adato, M., Carter, M. and May, J. (2004). Sens e in sociability? So cial exclusion and persistent poverty in South Africa. Retrieved February 12, 2006 from http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001127/P1246sense_in_sociability Dec2004.pdf Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technolog ies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University Press, USA. Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property inst itutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29 (10): 1649-1672. Aggarwal, R.M. (2000). Possibi lities and limitations to cooperation in small groups: The case of group-owned wells in Southern India. World Development: 28 (8), 14811492. Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (1997). Sta tistical methods for social sciences (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall, Inc. NJ, USA. Alavi, S.B. and McCormick, J. (2004). Theoreti cal and measurement issues for studies of collective orientati on in team contexts. Small Gr oup Research: 35 (2), 111-127. Aliber, M., Kirsten, M., Maharajh, R., NhlapoHlope, J. and Nkoane, O. (2006). Overcoming underdevelopment in South Africa's second economy. Development Southern Africa, 23(1): 45-61. Aliber, M. (2003). What went wrong? A pers pective on the first five years of land redistribution in South Africa, with Homily for the next five. Research report of the Human Science Research Council of Sout h Africa. Retrieved September 10, 2003 from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/learni ng/landrights/downl oads/wrongsa.rtf Anderson, A.B. (1975). Combined effects of in terpersonal attraction and goal-path clarity on the cohesiveness of task oriented groups Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (1): 68-75 Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. and Razavieh, A. (2002) Introduction to resear ch in education (6th ed.). Wadsworth Group, Thompson Learning, Inc. CA. Bakeman, R. and Helmreich, R. (1975). Cohe siveness and performance: Covariation and causality in an undersea environment. J ournal of Experiment al Social Psychology, 11(5): 478-489 Baland, J-M. and Platteau, J-M. (1999). Th e ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Development, 27(5): 773 788. Baland, J.M. and Platteau, J.P. (1997). Coor dination problems in local level resource management. Journal of Devel opment Economics, 53: 197-210.

PAGE 184

184 Bardhan, P. (2000). Irrigation a nd cooperation: An empirical analysis of 48 irrigation communities in South India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4): 847-865. Berg, B.L. (2004). Focus group interviewing. In : Qualitative research methods for social sciences. Pearson Education, Inc. Needham Heights, MA. Pp. 123-145. Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five Years of Groups Research: What We Have Learned and What Needs to Be Addressed. Journa l of Management, 17(2): 345. Binswanger, H. P. and K. Deininger (1993). South African land policy: The legacy of history and current options. World De velopment, 21(9): 1451-1475. Bollen, K. A. and R. H. Hoyle (1990). Perc eived Cohesion: A Con ceptual and Empirical Examination. Social Forces, 69(2): 479-504. Borras Jr, S. M. (2006). The Philippine Land Re form in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications. Journal of Ag rarian Change 6(1): 69-101. Borras, S. M. (2003). Questioning Market-Led Agrarian Reform: Experiences from Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(3): 367-394. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Li mpopo Province. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from http://concise.britannica.c om/ebc/article-9002254/Limpopo Bruening, T., Schrieffer, T., Bility, K., Carey, H., Mollel, N. and Ngomane, T. (2002). Needs of Extension Officers in the Northe rn Province of South Africa. A paper presented at the Association for Inte rnational Agricultural and Extension Education Annual Conference. Durban, South Africa. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford Press. NY, USA. Pp. 108-130. Burke, S.M., Carron, A.V., Patterson, M.M., Esta brooks, P.A., Hill, J.L., Loughead et al. (2005). Cohesion as shared beliefs in exercise cl asses. Small Group Research, 36(3): 267-288. Byrnes, K.J. (2003). Farmers organizations: Tapping their potential as catalysts for change in small-farmer agricultural systems. In: Brewer, F.L. (2003). Agricultural extension systems: An inte rnational perspective. XanEdu Original Works. MI, USA. Retrieved 20, January 2004 from file:///E:/ELECTRONIC%20 BOOKS/ FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK_ files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20 BOOK.htm Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N. a nd Sithole, B. (2001). Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: Despairing voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. Wo rld Development, 29(4): 589-600.

PAGE 185

185 Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., Bray, S.R., Eys, M.A., Dorsch, K.D., Estabrooks, P.A. et al. (2004). Using consensus as criterion for cohe siveness: implications for the cohesiongroup success relationship. Small Group Research, 35(4): 466-4891. Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., Eys, M.A., Bray, S., Dorsch, K., Estabrooks, P. et al. (2003). Do individual perceptions of gr oup cohesion reflect shared belie fs? An empirical analysis. Small Group Research, 34(4): 468-496. Carron, A. V. and K. S. Spink (1995). Th e Group Size-Cohesion Relationship in Minimal Groups. Small Group Research, 26(1): 86-105. Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N. and Brawle y, L.R. (1985). The development of an instrument to measure cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7: 244-266. Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport gr oups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4: 123-138 Carron, A.V. (1980). Social psychology of sport. Mouvement Publications. NY, USA. Pp. 233257. Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (1968). Groups and Group Membership: Introduction. In: Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. Group dynamics: Research and theory (Eds.). Harper and Row Publishers, New York. Pp. 45-62. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. ITDG Publishing, London, UK. Pp. 1-31. Chang, A. and Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesiongroup performance relationship. Small group Research, 32(4): 379-409 Christoplos, I., Ambridge, L. and Zellwe ger, T. (2003). Common framework for supporting pro-poor extension. Neuchatel Gr oup. Swiss Center for Agricultural Extension and Rural development (LBL ), Department of International Cooperation. Retrieved March 17, 2004 from http://www.neuchatelinitiative.net/ english/ documents/CommonFrameworkforSupportingPro -PoorExtension_Mail pdf Chwe, M.S-K. (1999). Structure and Strategy in Collective Action. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(1): 128-156 Clason, D.L. and Dormody, T.J. (1994). Analyzin g data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4): 31-35. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasiexperimental design a nd analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally College Pub. Co. Chicago, USA. Pp. 37-94.

PAGE 186

186 Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instrume nts: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12: 229-238. Collinson, M. (2000). A history of farming systems research. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. CABI Publishers. London, UK. Pp. 1-4. Countrystudies of the United States. (2003). Federal Research Di vision: Library of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/zatoc.html Cousins, B. (1999). Introduction: Does land and ag rarian reform have a future and, if so, who will benefit? In: At the crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century. Cousins, B. (ed.). Papers from a conference held at Al pha Training Center, Pretoria. Published by Program for Land and Ag rarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Western Cape, and National Land Committee. Pp. 1-8. CPA Act Communal Property Association Act of South Africa. (1996). Retrieved September 10, 2003 from http://www.caledonia.org.uk/ socialland/south.htm Dayton-Johnson, J. (2000). Determinants of collective action on the local commons: A model with evidence from Mexico. Jour nal of Development Economics, 62(1): 181-208. Dayton-Johnson, J. (2000). Choosing rules to govern the comm ons: A model with evidence from Mexico. Journal of Econo mic Behavior and Organization, 42(1): 19-41. Deininger, K. (1999). Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Init ial Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa. World Development, 27(4): 651-672. Deininger, K. and May, J. (2000). Ca n there be growth with equity? An initial assessment of land reform in South Africa. World Bank Polic y research Working Paper 2451. Retrieved October 2, 2003 from http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/research/workpapers.nsf/ bd04ac9da150d30385256815005076ce/2e4348f1b8a1e 0ac85256960004d32fb/$FILE/wps 2451.pdf DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied Research Method Series 26. Sage Publica tions. CA. Pp. 60-99. Development Report (2005). Ag riculture in South Africas second economy. In: Overcoming underdevelopment in South Afri cas second economy. Chapter 7. Devereux, S. and Maxwell, S. (2003). F ood security in Sub-Saharan Africa. ITDG Publishing, London, UK. DFID (2005). Pro-poor growth in the 1990s: Less ons and insights from 14 countries. A DFID Policy Paper. Operationalizing Pro-Poor Growth Research Program. The World Bank. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/gr owth-poverty-report.pdf

PAGE 187

187 Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. J. Wiley. NY, USA. Pp. 3-31. Dion, K.L. (2000). Group cohesion: from field of forces to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Re search and practice, 4(1): 7-26. Downing, S.M. (2003). Validity: On the mean ingful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 37: 830-837. Douglas, J. (2005). Transformation of South Africa schooling system: Teacher professionalism and education transfor mation. Center for Education Policy development. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http://www.cepd.org.za/content/ Publications/Teacher%20Professionalism.pdf Duvel, G.H. (2004). Developi ng an appropriate extension approach for South Africa: Process and outcome. South African Jour nal of Agric. Extension, 33: 1-10 Duvel, G. (1996). Institutional linkages for effective coordination and cooperation in participative rural development. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 3(2): 29-35. Dyaram, L. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2005) Unearthed: The other side of group cohesiveness. Journal of Social Science, 10(3): 185-190. English, A., Griffith, R.L., Steelman, L.A. ( 2004). Team performance the effect of team conscientiousness and task type. Small Group Research: 35(6): 643-665. Emons, W.H.M., Sijitsma, K. and Meijer, R.R. (2007). On the consistency of individual classification using short scales. Ps ychological Methods, 12(1): 105-120. Enoch, J.R. and McLemore, S.D. (1967) On the meaning of group cohesion. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 48(2):174-182. Estabrooks, P.A. and Carron, A.V. (2000). The Physical activity group environment questionnaire: An instrument for the assessmen t of cohesion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(3): 230-243. Etzioni, A. (1996). A moderate communitari an proposal. Political Theory, 24(2): 155171. Evans, C. R. and K. L. Dion (1991). Group Cohe sion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2): 175-186. FAO. (2004). Drought impact mitigation and preven tion in the Limpopo River Basin. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr .asp?url_file=/doc rep/008/y5744e/y 5744e0a.htm

PAGE 188

188 FAO (2003). The state of food insecurity in the world: Monitoring progress towards the World Food Summit and the Millennium Development Goals. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/j0083e/j0083e00.pdf FAO. 2002. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture De velopment Program. Ch 1. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.a sp?url_file=/ do crep/005/ Y6831E /Y6831E00.htm FAO. (1998). Knowledge and information for food security in Afri ca: From traditional media to the Internet. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from http://www.fao.org/sd/CDdirect/C Dan0017.htm Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social co mmunication. Psychological Review, 57(5): 271-282. Festinger, L., Schachter, S. and Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford University Press. CA. Pp. 151-180. Friedkin, N.E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1): 409-425 Garson, G.D. (2007). Topics in multivariate anal ysis: Reliability analysis from Stats notes: Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.e du/garson/pa765/reliab.htm Garson, G.D. (2006). Topics in multivariate an alysis: Sampling. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/sampling.htm GCIS (Government communication and informati on system). (2005). Pocket guide to South Africa: Agriculture, forestry and land. Retrieved June 2, 2007 from http://www.gcis. gov.za/docs/publications/pocketguide05/agricu05.pdf Graforth, C. and Jones, G.E. (1997). The history, development and future of agricultural extension. In: Swanson, Burton E.; Robert P. Bentz; and Andrew J. Sofranko. (eds.). Improving Agricultural Extens ion: A reference manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na tions. Chapter 1. Retrieved 20, January 2004 from file:///E:/ELECTRONIC%20BOOK S/FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK.htm Griffin, K., Khan, A.R. and Ickowitz, Z.A. (2002) Poverty and the Distribution of Land. Journal of Agrarian Change, 2(3): 279-330. Hackman, J.R. (1990). Groups that work ( and those that dont): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. Jossey-Bass Inc. P ublishers. CA. USA. Pp. 1-14. Hall, R. (2004). Land and agrarian reform in S outh Africa: A status repor t. Research Report N. 20. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.plaas.org.za/publications/ researchreports/RR20

PAGE 189

189 Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the comm ons. Science: 162, 1243 1248. Retrieved 10 June, 2004 from http://www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/content/f ull/162/3859/1243 Hardy, J., Eys, M.A. and Carron, A.V. (2005). E xploring the potential disadvantages of high cohesion in sport teams. Sma ll Group Research, 36(2): 166-187. Holmn, H. (2003). A green revolution for Afri ca: Does it need to be controversial? International Center for Economic Researc h. Working paper series No. 4. Retrieved September 12, 2003 from http://www. icer.it/docs/wp2003/Holmen4-03.pdf Jayne, T.S., Villarreal, M., Pingali, P. and Hemrich, G. (2004). Interactions between agricultural sector and the HIV/AIDS pandemic: Implications for policy. ESA Working Paper No. 04-06. Agricultural and Development Economic Division, FAO. Retrieved on 20, March 2006 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/ae061e/ ae061e00.pdf Jodha, N.S. (1986). Common property resources a nd rural poor in dry regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly, 21(27): 1169-1181. Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H. and Contract or, N. (2004). Network theory and small groups. Small Group Research,(35(3): 307-332. Kossac, S.N. (2005). Exploring the elements of culturally releva nt service delivery. Families in Society: Journal of Cont emporary Social Services, 86(2): 189-195. Knox, A. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2001). Collect ive action, property rights, and devolution of natural resource management: Exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. CGIAR systemwide program on pr operty rights and collective action. CAPRI working paper No. 11. Retrieved June 20, 2004 from http://www.capri.cgiar. org/pdf/capriwp11.pdf Lahiff, E. (1997). Land, water and local govern ance in South Africa: A case study of the Mutale River Valley. Rural resources, ru ral livelihoods worki ng paper series. Research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Global environmental change program. Retrieved June 30, 2005 from http://www.sed. manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publ ications/wp/rr/documents/rr _wp07.pdf Landers, D.M. and Luschen, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and the cohesiveness of competitive coacting groups. Internationa l Review of Sport Sociology, 2(9): 57-71. Leibbrandt, M., Levinsohn, J. & McCrary, J. (2005) Incomes in S outh Africa since the fall of Apartheid. NBER Working Paper No. 11384. National Bureau for Economic Research: Cambridge, London, UK. Retrieved 20, March 2007 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11384 Limpopo Provincial Government (2005). Growth and Development Strategy. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from www.limpopo.gov.za/pubs_docs/docs/pgds%20document.doc

PAGE 190

190 Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. (Eds.) (1996). Ve getation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Published by the Department of Environm ental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. Lund, S. (1996). An overview of the land reform pilot program. In: van Zyl, J., Kirsten, J. and Binswanger, H.P. Agricultural land reform in South Africa: Policies, markets and Mechanisms. Oxford University Press. Cape Town, South Africa. Pp. 547-562. Machete, C.L. and Mollel, N.M. (1999). Ex tension and support serv ices for smallholder agricultural development in South Africa: W ho is the smallholder farmer? In: At the crossroads: Land and agrarian refo rm in South Africa into the 21st century. Cousins, B. (ed.). Papers from a conference held at Al pha Training Center, Pretoria. Published by Program for Land and Agrarian Studies (PL AAS), University of Western Cape, and National Land Committee. Pp. 340-348. Matthew, B.A., Baker, F. and Spillers, R.L. (2003). How true is true? Assessing socially desirable response bias. Quality and Quantity, 37: 327-335. May, J. (2000). The structure a nd composition of rural poverty and livelihoods in South Africa. In: At the crossroads: La nd and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century. Cousins, B. (ed.). Papers from a conferen ce held at Alpha Trai ning Center, Pretoria. Published by Program for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of Western Cape, and National Land Committee. Pp. 21-34. McCarthy, N., de Janvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. (1998). Land allocation under dualcollective use in Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 56(2): 239-264 McCay, B.J. and Jentoft, S. (1998). Market or community failure? Critical perspectives on common property research. Huma n Organization, 57(1): 21-29 McCuster, B. (2004). Land use and cover cha nge as an indicator of transformation on recently redistributed farms in Limpo po Province, South Africa. Human Ecology, 32(1): 49-74. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present and future. Personality and Social Ps ychology Review, 4(1): 95-105. Meizen-Dick, R., Raju, K.V. and Gulati, A. (2000). What affects organization and collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. Paper presented at the 8th Biennial meeting of the Inte rnational Association for the study of common property, Bloomington, Indiana. Merriam, S.B. (1995). What can you tell fr om an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PA CCE Journal of Lifelong Learning 4: 51-60. Mullen, B. and Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psyc hological Bulletin, 115(2): 210-227

PAGE 191

191 Myatt, D.P. and Wallace, C. (2004). The evolut ion of collective action. Retrieved July 2, 2004 from http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk/ccw/pdf/CollAct.pdf Myatt, D.P. and Wallace, C. (2003). Evoluti on in teams. Retrieved July 2, 2004 from http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk.ccw/pdf/teamv1.pdf Nagel, U.J. (1997). Alternative approaches to organizing extension. In: Swanson, Burton E.; Robert P. Bentz; and Andrew J. So franko. (eds.). Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 20, January 2004 from file:///E:/ELECTRONIC %20BOOKS/FAO %20 EXTENSION%20BOOK_files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK.htm NDA (National Department of Agri culture) and Statistics South Africa. (2005). Size of farms and biographical characteristics of agricultu ral workers. In: Employment trends in agriculture in South Africa. Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/ Employment/cover.htm NDA (National Department of Agricult ure). (2002). The integrated food security strategy for South Africa. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2002/foodpol.pdf NDA-NDLA (National Departments of agriculture and Land Affairs). (2005). Land and agrarian reform in South Africa: An overview in prep aration for the land summit. Paper presented by NDA and NDLA at the Land Summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa. Pp. 29-53. NDA-NDLA (National Departments of Agriculture and Land Affairs) (n .d.). Land redistribution for agricultural development: A subprogram of the land redistribution program. Pp. 5-14. NDA (2004). Progress report on the implementati on of CASP. Retrieved August 23, 2007 from http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/CA SP/CASP%20Report_31%20August.pdf Noruis, M.J. (2003). SPSS 12.0: Statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall, NJ. Oliver, P.E. (1993). Formal models of co llective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 19 (1): 271-300 Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective acti on. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of economic perspectives: 14 (3), 137 158. Ostrom, E. (1991). Governing the commons: The evolution of institut ions for collective action, political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 192

192 Ostrom, E. and Gardner, R. (1993). Coping with asymmetries in the commons: Selfgoverning irrigation systems can work. Th e Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (4): 93-112. Poole, M.S., Hollingshead, A.B., McGrath, J.E., Moreland, R.L. And Rohrbaugh, J. (2004). Interdisciplinary pe rspectives on small groups. Small Group Research, 35 (1): 3-16. Poteete, A. and Ostrom, E. (2003). In pursu it of comparable concepts and data about collective action. CAPRI wo rking paper No.29. CGIAR systemwide Program on collective action and property ri ghts. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from http://www.capri.cgiar .org/pdf/capriwp29.pdf Provide (Provincial decision-making enabling pr oject). (2005). A profile of the Limpopo province: Demographics, poverty, inequality and unemployment. PROVIDE Project Background Paper: 1 (9), 1-19. Retrieved February, 20 2006 from http://www.elsenburg. com/provide/documents/BP2005_1_9%20Demographics %20LP.pdf Quiggin, J. (1995). Common property in agri cultural production: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26: 179-200. Randhir, T.O. and Lee, J.G. (1996). Managi ng local commons in developing economies: An institutional approach. Ecological Economics, 16(1): 1-12 Razavi, S. (ed.). (2005). Shifting burdens : Gender and agrarian change under neoliberalization. United Nations Resear ch Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Kumarian Press Inc. Pp. 1-34. Rivera, W.M. and Cary, J.W. (1997). Privatiz ing agricultural extens ion. In: Swanson B.E., Robert, P.B. and Andrew, J.S. Improving ag ricultural extension: A reference manual. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organi zation of the United Nations. Retrieved 20, January 2004 from file:///E:/ELECTRONIC%20BOOKS/FAO%20EXTENSION%20 BOOK files/FAO%20EXTENSION%20BOOK.htm Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. and Freeman, H.E. (2004) (Eds.). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications. CA, USA. Pp. 301-330. Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. (1997). (eds.). Research methods for social work. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. CA, USA. Rural Survey (1997). Statistics South Africa. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from http://www.statssa.gov.za/ publications/P0360/P0360June1999.pdf Schafer, J.L. and Graham, J.W. (2002). Missin g data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2): 147-177.

PAGE 193

193 Schmidt, K. (2005). Food security in Sout h Africa: The case of subsistence farming. Alternative Information and Development Ce nter (AIDC). Retrieved February 10, 2006 http://www.aidc.org.za/?q=book/view/524 Shapcott, K.M., Carron, A.V., Burke, S.M., Br adshaw, M.H. and Estabrooks, P.A. (2006). Members diversity and cohesion and perf ormance in walking groups. Small Group Research, 37(6): 701-720. Statistics South Africa (2003) Gross Domestic Product: An nual estimates 1993-2003 and estimates per region 1995-2002. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://www.statssa.gov.za/publi cations/P0441/P04413rdQuarter2003.pdf Sommer, R. and Sommer, B. ( 2002). A practical guide to beha vioral research: Tools and techniques. Oxford Press, New York. Pp. 159-169. Stocker, G. (2004). Designing institutions fo r governance in complex environments: Normative, rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. ESRC Fellowship Paper No.1. Retrieved July 20, 2005 from http://www.ipeg.org.uk/papers/ESRC%20Paper%20No%201.pdf?PHPSESSID =3c7044cc676b9946717eaf62b7bc5810 Sugden, R. (1984). Reciprocity: The supply of public goods through voluntary contributions. The Economic Journal, 94(376): 772-787 Tapson, D.R. (1996). The technical component of mixed and live stock farming in semi-arid areas. In: Lipton, M., Ellis, F. and Lipton, M. Land, labour and livelihoods in rural South Africa. Volume Two: Kwazulu-Natal and Northe rn Province. Indicator Press, University of Natal, Durban. Pp. 263-268. Theesfeld, I. (2004). Constraints on collective action in a transitional economy: The case of Bulgarias irrigation sector. World development, 32(2): 251-271. Thorp, R., Stewart, F. and Heyer, A. (2005). When and how far is group formation a route out of chronic poverty? World Deve lopment, 33(6): 907-920. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequenc e in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6): 384-399. Tuomel, R. (2003). Collective acceptance, soci al institutions, and social reality: Criticisms and Reconstructions. The Am erican Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(1): 123-165 UNAIDS. (2006). Retrieved March 2, 2006 from http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions _Countries/ Countries/south_africa.asp Van Bergen, A. and J. Koekebakker (1959). Group cohesiveness in laboratory experiments. Acta Psychologica, 16: 81-98.

PAGE 194

194 Van Rooyen, J., Kirsten, J.F., Vink, N. and Simb i, T. (1996). Structur al adjustment and agricultural policy reform in South Africa. SD Publica tions Series. Office of Sustainable Development Ber eau for Africa. Technical Pa per No. 34. Retrieved October 20, 2003 from http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/ag_transformation/vanrooy.pdf Veraghese, G. and Ostrom, E. (2001). The Contes ted Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Fore stry in Nepal. World Development, 29(5): 747-765. White Paper on Agriculture (1995). Retrieved October 20, 2003 from http://www.gov.za/ whitepaper/1995/agriculture.htm#8 White Paper on Education (1995). Retrieved October 20, 2003 from http://www.info.gov.za/whitepapers/1995/education1.htm White Paper on Land Policy (1998). Departme nt of Land Affairs. National Office. Pretoria, SA. Whyte, W.F. (1986), The need for new stra tegy. In: Hildebrand, P. 1986. Perspectives on farming systems research and extensi on. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Co. USA. Pp. 1-11. Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In: Silverman, D. (ed.). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.), Pp. 177-199. SAGE Publications. London, UK. Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., Paulus, P.B., Hirokawa, R.Y., Ancona, D.G., Peterson, R.S. et al. (2004). The functional perspective a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research: 35 (1), 17-43. Woolard, I. (2002). An overview of poverty and inequality in South Africa. Working Paper prepared for DFID (SA). Retrieved 29, August 2007 from http://datafirst.cssr.uct.ac.za/ resource/papers/woolard_2002.pdf World Bank (2000). Rural development in dicators handbook. In: World development indicators. Rural development. Retrieved February 3, 2006 from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSConte ntServer/WDSP/IB/2001/06/29/000094946_ 01061604041624/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf Worster, A.M. and Abrams, E. (2005). Se nse of place among New England commercial fishermen and organic farmers: Implic ations for socially constructed environmental education. Environm ental Education Research: 11, 525-535. Zeller, R.A. and Carmines, E.G. (1980). Meas urement in the social sciences: The link between theory and data. Cambridge Univer sity Press. Cambridge, London. Retrieved September 5, 2005 from http://classes.kumc.edu/son/nrs g953/readings/zeller_carmines.pdf

PAGE 195

195 Zimmerman, F. J. (2000). Barrier s to Participation of the Poor in South Africas Land Redistribution. World Deve lopment, 28(8): 1439-1460.

PAGE 196

196 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tirhani Prudence Manganyi was born in 1976 in rural village in the north east of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Tirhani grew up in the fam ily of six with her pare nts and three siblings. She attended and completed primary school in 1989 at Nhlengani Primary School. She proceeded to Kheto Nxumayo where she comp leted high school education in 1994. At the University of the Limpopo (the then University of the North), Tirhani obtained a bachelors degree in agricultural management, honors degree in animal production and a masters degree in agricultural extension. In August 2003, Tirhani started her Ph.D studies at the University of Florida after she was awarded a Fulbright Sc holarship. Growing up in one of the poorest province in South Africa, Tirh ani understands the importance of agricultures contribution toward rural livelihood systems. Thus, Tirhanis in terest in agriculture wi ll greatly contribute toward solving problems facing rural farming communities in South Africa.