Towards Building Resilient Rural Communities: Voices From Vulnerable Rural Students in Zimbabwe

The Social Ecology of Resilience Theory (SERT): An Evolving Theory

Resilience has evolved from being viewed as an individual trait enabling children to ‘beat the odds’ (Rutter, 2012) to a dynamic process embedded within ecological systems (Hemson, 2019). Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and Lewin’s field theory [B = f (P, E)], SERT highlights the interaction between individuals and their environments (Ramage & Shipp, 2020; Tudge et al., 2022). Bronfenbrenner describes development as shaped by nested systems: the microsystem (family, school, peers), mesosystem (interactions between these contexts), exosystem (indirect influences such as policies), macrosystem (cultural and socioeconomic conditions), and chronosystem (changes over time) (Theron & Van Rensburg, 2018; Tudge et al., 2022). From this view, resilience emerges when individuals access supportive resources across these systems. Ungar (2011) further emphasises that resilience depends not only on individual strengths but also on the availability of supportive environments such as families, schools, and communities, making it culturally and contextually grounded.

The current study adopts this evolving SERT to understand how vulnerable students navigate adversity and persist in educational pathways. Resilience is reconceptualised as a social-ecological process rather than an individual trait, emerging through dynamic and culturally grounded interactions between individuals and their environments (Ungar, 2011; Zimmerman, 2013). It develops through relationships with parents, teachers, peers, mentors, and community members that provide emotional support, guidance, and role modelling (Malindi, 2021; Mavhura, 2017; Naderpajouh et al., 2023). In education, supportive teacher–student relationships and positive peer networks strengthen motivation, confidence, and persistence despite socioeconomic hardship, fostering adaptive coping and positive development. SERT also shows that resilience is shaped by multiple ecological systems operating at different levels of social life (Chidakwa, 2020; Chidakwa & Hlalele, 2022). Immediate contexts such as families, peers, and schools influence daily experiences and provide direct support, while broader structures such as education policies, economic conditions, and cultural values shape available opportunities (McAllister & Wright, 2019). These interconnected layers highlight resilience as the product of complex interactions between personal experiences and wider social systems.

Another key principle is that resilience is culturally and contextually defined. Theron and Van Rensburg (2018) show that resilience behaviour varies across societies because coping strategies are shaped by local beliefs, traditions, and expectations. In many contexts, resilience is expressed through collective responsibility, strong family ties, spirituality, and communal support systems (Malindi, 2018, 2021). Recognising these grounded expressions helps avoid imposing universal or Western-centred interpretations of coping and adaptation, and supports more contextually relevant approaches. In Zimbabwe, indigenous knowledge systems are embedded within kinship networks, extended family structures, communal child-rearing practices, and culturally specific belief systems among groups such as the Shona and Ndebele (Chidakwa, 2025a; Mpofu et al., 2013). Ndlovu (2023) notes that these systems shape resilience through collective caregiving, respect for elders, spiritual guidance, and community accountability. These practices influence how students experience support and navigate their educational pathways, including transitions into higher education.

SERT conceptualises resilience as a socially embedded and culturally mediated process through which individuals adapt to adversity using personal agency, community support, atypical pathways (such as informal mentorship, peer learning, and distance learning), and structural opportunities (such as scholarships, inclusive education policies, and government support programmes) (Ungar, 2011). It requires decentring the individual when examining resilience and focussing instead on the broader social ecology. In this study, indigenous knowledge systems are integrated across multiple levels: the intrapersonal level (belief systems and identity), the meso-level (family, kinship, and community support), and the macro-level (cultural norms, traditions, and values shaping educational aspirations and resilience pathways) (Chidakwa, 2025b; Marongedza et al., 2022). This integration strengthens understanding of rural students’ transition to higher education by linking cultural context, social systems, and agency, ensuring resilience is interpreted in locally grounded rather than externally imposed terms.

In rural education, SERT highlights how structural conditions and access to resources shape resilience outcomes (Hemson, 2019; Rutter, 2012). Rather than focussing only on overcoming poverty and infrastructure gaps, it draws attention to strengths within rural social systems, indigenous knowledge, and local aspirations (Dube et al., 2020; Hay, 2021; Hay & Joubert, 2021). However, poverty, inequality, limited resources, and social exclusion can still constrain opportunities for resilience development. Strengthening resilience therefore requires both individual empowerment and the improvement of social systems that enable access to education, mentorship, and community support (Mhongera & Lombard, 2020; Motsa & Morojele, 2017). This positions resilience as dependent on personal agency and enabling structures. SERT aligns with Zimbabwe’s education policies (ESSP 2021–2025, Vision 2030, HBC) and global SDGs 4 and 10 by emphasising equity, inclusion, and indigenous knowledge. It thus shifts focus from deficit-based to strength-based approaches, supporting participatory, culturally grounded, and ecologically sensitive interventions for rural students’ transition to higher education.

Participants

The sample comprised 15 rural student participants (RSP1–RSP15), aged 13–18 years, drawn purposively from Forms 1–4 (Grade 8–11 in South Africa). Criterion-based sampling was used, with inclusion based on (1) enrolment in a rural secondary school, (2) adolescence (13–18 years), (3) socioeconomic vulnerability such as orphanhood or caregiving responsibilities, and (4) willingness to discuss educational experiences. The age range reflected adolescence as a key stage for identity formation, resilience development, and educational aspiration. Including both boys and girls ensured diverse perspectives, with many participants experiencing orphanhood and caregiving responsibilities that shaped their resilience. This sampling strategy aligned with the study’s focus on marginalised populations (Chidakwa & Hlalele, 2022; UNESCO, 2020). To address power imbalances, a participatory approach positioned participants as active contributors rather than passive respondents (Lokot et al., 2023), aligning with decolonial critiques of extractive research and supporting more equitable knowledge production (Creswell & Poth, 2024).

Instruments and Data Collection

The interview protocol was developed iteratively through literature review (Englander & Morley, 2023; Ungar, 2011), alignment with the conceptual framework, and consultation with local educators to ensure cultural relevance. Interviews were audio-recorded with informed assent and school approval, with assurances of confidentiality and restricted research use. Reflective journals were also used over 2 weeks to capture deeper, day-to-day reflections not easily accessed through interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2024). Students completed three entries, guided by simple prompts on challenges and sources of strength or hope. Journals were later discussed with participants for clarification. This triangulated approach strengthened credibility by providing corroborating evidence through independent verification of interviews and participant-generated reflections within a participatory, culturally responsive framework.

Data Analysis and Procedures

Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2022) six-phase thematic analysis framework, offering a structured yet flexible approach to identifying patterns across interviews and journals. In phase 1 (familiarisation), all interviews were transcribed, and journal entries repeatedly read to develop a holistic understanding of participants’ experiences (Englander & Morley, 2023; Tisdell et al., 2025; Ungar, 2011). Phase 2 (coding) involved inductive, line-by-line coding to capture elements such as emotional expression, hardship, coping strategies, and social support systems. Phase 3 (theme development) grouped related codes into preliminary themes reflecting resilience experiences among rural students. In phase 4 (reviewing themes), themes were refined through iterative comparison to ensure coherence and distinctiveness. Phase 5 (defining themes) clarified each theme’s central meaning in relation to resilience under conditions of poverty and exclusion (Tisdell et al., 2025; Ungar, 2011). Phase 6 (writing up) involved presenting themes with supporting excerpts, guided by reflexive interpretation. Interview and journal data were analysed together to support triangulation, with journals often providing deeper elaboration of interview insights. For example, brief references to school stress in interviews were expanded in journals through accounts of balancing academic and household responsibilities. This strengthened interpretation of coping and resilience (Lokot et al., 2023). Trustworthiness was further enhanced through peer debriefing and informal member checking during school visits, ensuring findings remained grounded in participants’ lived realities.

Ethical Considerations, Reflexivity, and Trustworthiness

Ethical clearance was obtained, and ethical principles were upheld through informed consent from participants and guardians, voluntary participation, the right to withdraw, and confidentiality ensured via anonymisation and secure data storage (Creswell & Poth, 2024). Sensitive issues were handled carefully, with opportunities for debriefing and referral to support services where needed (Tisdell et al., 2025). Trustworthiness was ensured through credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability, supported by a transparent thematic analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Credibility was strengthened through prolonged engagement, verbatim quotations, and peer debriefing. Dependability and conformability were ensured through an audit trail of coding and theme development, while transferability was supported by rich contextual descriptions. Reflexivity was maintained through a researcher journal documenting assumptions and biases (Englander & Morley, 2023), alongside participant and community validation to keep interpretations grounded in lived experiences and aligned with participatory and decolonial principles.

Internalised Limitations Created Negative Self-Perceptions

At the intrapersonal level of the adapted SERT, internalised limitations emerged as a major barrier shaping rural students’ perceived ability to transition into higher education. Many participants held deeply embedded beliefs that success is unattainable due to socioeconomic background and cultural upbringing, which in turn influenced their aspirations and educational decisions. These intergenerational narratives often reinforced expectations of failure. One participant stated, ‘Where I come from, people say that if your family has never succeeded, you will also fail. It’s in the blood’ (RSP3), illustrating how such beliefs weaken motivation and self-confidence and constrain agency in pursuing higher education. These findings highlight an important gap in conventional SERT applications, which typically underemphasise intrapersonal dimensions, despite their centrality in shaping access to higher education. At the macro-level, spiritual and traditional beliefs further reinforced these limitations. For example, one participant noted, ‘Sometimes I dream of being successful, but elders tell us that dreams are warnings, not encouragements’ (RSP7), while another stated, ‘If your elders did not go far in life, you should not expect to go further’ (RSP5). At the meso-level, such beliefs are transmitted through family and community interactions, shaping educational trajectories during the transition phase and limiting students’ ability to envision futures beyond their immediate contexts, thereby constraining access to higher education.

Additionally, societal conditioning at the intrapersonal level of the adapted SERT framework fosters passivity in shaping personal futures, particularly during the transition to higher education. One participant noted, ‘Even if I try, I feel like my life is already written for me’ (RSP2), reflecting reduced self-determination and weakened pursuit of higher education opportunities. Another added, ‘No matter how much effort I put in, people say I cannot change my fate’ (RSP11), showing how discouragement at the meso-level through family and community interactions reinforces this mind-set. At the macro-level, such fatalistic beliefs are embedded in broader cultural narratives, constraining aspirations, limiting motivation, and reducing students’ agency to access and succeed in higher education.

Active Support Systems and Personal Strengths-Built Resilience

Findings show that personal determination and self-belief are critical enabling factors in students’ transition to higher education. Strengthening resilience among rural learners requires supportive systems, positive role models, and community-driven initiatives that shape aspirations and readiness for higher education. Role models from similar backgrounds are particularly influential, with one student noting, ‘When I see an older student from my village who made it, I start to think maybe I can also do it’ (RSP2), showing how lived success challenges fatalistic beliefs and strengthens confidence. At the meso-level, relationships with teachers, peers, and mentors provide key support during transition. Encouragement from teachers helps reshape self-perception, as reflected in the statement, ‘My teacher always tells me that I am intelligent… now I try harder’ (RSP9). Such affirmation strengthens self-efficacy, motivation, and preparedness, enabling students to move beyond psychological constraints and pursue higher education opportunities.

Besides mentorship, peer exposure within the microsystem (Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model) emerged as a strong influence on students’ development. One participant noted, ‘Some of my friends now think differently after going to the city. They say life can change if we work hard’ (RSP14), showing how broadened perspectives foster ambition and higher education aspirations. At the macro-level, community support systems and collective cultural practices also strengthen resilience by providing resources that enable educational progression. Personal determination further reinforced these influences, as reflected in statements such as, ‘If I wait for someone to save me, I will stay in the same place forever. I must make a move myself’ (RSP8) and ‘My family’s struggles are not my destiny. I will work hard and make a difference’ (RSP3). These accounts highlight how self-motivation, combined with supportive ecological systems, helps students challenge intergenerational disadvantage and pursue higher education as a pathway to social mobility.

Mentorship and community encouragement are crucial in bridging the gap between aspiration and achievement. One participant noted, ‘Sometimes, all we need is someone to say, “I believe in you,” and it gives us the strength to keep going’ (RSP9). Alumni who share their experiences also provide tangible pathways, reinforcing the belief that success, including access to higher education, is attainable. Collective action further strengthens resilience, as illustrated by the statement, ‘When the community comes together to help students, we all benefit’ (RSP1), showing the value of shared responsibility in supporting transitions to tertiary education. Participants also highlighted inclusive school practices. One student explained, ‘Our teachers try to involve everyone in class discussions and encourage us not to feel left behind’ (RSP5), indicating how participation builds confidence and readiness for higher education. Generally, role models, teacher support, exposure to broader experiences, mentorship, and community action help students overcome internalised limitations and strengthen resilience. Although this transition is gradual and complex, resilience can be nurtured through aligning aspirations with resources, respecting student agency, providing guidance, fostering collaboration, and recognising community success, all of which support equitable access to higher education.

(1) Yearning for Self-Regulation

Findings show that a key element in fostering resilience is aligning students’ aspirations with available support systems and resources, particularly in relation to academic pathways and higher education decisions. Many rural students reported feeling excluded from decisions about subject choices and career planning, which affected their motivation and readiness for higher education. One participant noted, ‘Although we can make our own decisions, parents, teachers, and influential individuals need to engage us on subject choices at school…’ (RSP6), highlighting the importance of mentorship and guidance that is both structured and responsive to student aspirations. When students feel heard, their confidence and resilience increase. Conversely, ignoring their interests can lead to disengagement, as reflected in the statement, ‘If our interests are considered… we might even decide to drop out of school’ (RSP2). These accounts highlight the need for participatory decision-making that supports student agency and strengthens transition pathways into higher education. At the meso-level, interactions between students, families, teachers, and community stakeholders shape agency during this transition. Participants further emphasised the need for recognition and inclusion, with one stating, ‘If they value us, they will support our participation in decision-making processes’ (RSP10), linking empowerment directly to resilience and higher education aspirations. Another suggested ‘… community forum where learners can voice concerns and ideas’ (RSP8), reinforcing the role of inclusive spaces in strengthening engagement, community resilience, and access to higher education opportunities.

(2) Counselling and Guidance as Preventative Measures

Counselling and guidance were frequently identified as essential in helping students navigate challenges and make informed decisions about their academic trajectories and access to higher education. Participants noted that structured mentoring supports both emotional resilience and decision-making. One stated, ‘Of course, counselling and coaching enable us to accept the circumstances in which we live’ (RSP4), reflecting its role at the intrapersonal level in strengthening coping and self-understanding. However, gaps in provision were also highlighted, with one participant noting, ‘Guidance and counselling… is not used here’ (RSP2), pointing to missed opportunities in rural schools. Others linked counselling directly to educational planning: ‘If we had proper guidance, it would help us choose the right subjects and know what to do after school’ (RSP7), showing its influence on higher education pathways. Teachers were also seen as important sources of informal guidance, with one participant stating, ‘Teachers try to guide all of us about opportunities…’ (RSP6). At the macro-level, limited counselling provision reflects broader systemic inequalities that constrain equitable access to higher education. Strengthening counselling services in rural schools is therefore critical for enhancing resilience, improving informed decision-making, and supporting successful transitions into higher education.

(3) Collaboration and Celebrating Community Achievements

At the meso- and macro-levels of the adapted SERT framework, collaboration, and the celebration of community achievements emerged as key factors of strengthening resilience and supporting rural students’ transition into higher education. Participants emphasised that resilience is built through collective effort within community systems. One noted, ‘In a rural community, a culture of collaboration and teamwork should be built’ (RSP6), reflecting resilience as a relational and shared process that shapes educational aspirations. Celebrating both small and large achievements was also seen as motivating students and reinforcing the possibility of accessing higher education. As one participant stated, ‘Success or failure should belong to the community, not just an individual’ (RSP1), highlighting the role of collective identity in shaping motivation. Another added, ‘When others succeed, and we celebrate them, it makes us want to go further, even to university’ (RSP8), showing how community recognition strengthens aspiration toward higher education pathways.

Furthermore, students highlighted inclusive practices such as equitable encouragement and shared access to opportunities at the meso-level through schools and community interactions. One participant noted, ‘In our school, everyone is encouraged to take part and aim higher, no matter where they come from’ (RSP3), suggesting that inclusive environments strengthen participation, confidence, and readiness for higher education. From a Bronfenbrenner perspective, these findings show how meso-level collaborative practices and macro-level cultural values interact to shape resilience as a socially embedded process influencing higher education trajectories. The findings point to the importance of student empowerment, participatory decision-making, and community collaboration in transforming limitations into resilience and strengthening equitable access to higher education.

Implications

The findings have important implications for theory, policy, and practice, especially in how resilience is conceptualised, supported, and institutionalised in rural Zimbabwean education.

Limitations of the Study

While the study provides valuable insights into resilience among rural students, several limitations warrant consideration. First, reliance on self-reported data reflects participants’ personal perceptions and lived experiences, which may emphasise individual meanings and interpretations of resilience. Second, the study was conducted in selected rural schools within a specific region, limiting the transferability of findings to other rural contexts where cultural norms, resources, and institutional arrangements may differ. Third, consistent with qualitative inquiry, the study does not seek statistical generalisation but rather offers analytical insights into a specific case (Yin, 2018). Finally, the cross-sectional design captures experiences at a single point in time and does not account for shifts in policy or community dynamics.

Positionality and Reflexivity

As researchers with personal and professional connections to rural Zimbabwe and South Africa, we occupied a dynamic insider–outsider position throughout the study. Our familiarity with rural schooling built trust, rapport, and culturally responsive data generation. At the same time, proximity risked interpreting experiences through our assumptions. We engaged in ongoing reflexive practice to examine how our positionality shaped data collection, interpretation, and representation. Our engagement was driven by scholarly and ethical commitments to challenge deficit views of rural youth and recognise them as knowledgeable social actors whose lived experiences constitute valuable knowledge.

Several strategies enhanced trustworthiness, including a reflexivity journal documenting assumptions, emotions, and interpretive decisions throughout data engagement. Initial coding was inductive to avoid constraining participant meanings, supported by peer debriefing and informal member checking to strengthen interpretive validity and alignment with participants’ lived realities. Awareness of shifting positionality, as insider and institutional authority, informed efforts to minimise hierarchy during data generation. Although these measures cannot eliminate researcher influence, they represent a transparent attempt to keep analysis grounded in participants’ accounts.