Analyzing Urie Bronfenbrenners Ecological Theory of Development - Research Paper Example

Analyzing Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory of Development Introduction Urie Bronfenbrenner has constantly improved and broadened his thoughts about the perspective in which development takes place because unlike in the past when “much of developmental psychology… is [was] the science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time” (Curry, 1986, 19), a fundamental issue in the arena of psychology at present is how to apply ecological paradigms to enhance knowledge on development. There currently is a definite concrete and theoretical understanding that the wider ecology, alongside family- and individual-level variables, serves a major function in facilitating development. Two key theoretical viewpoints have been recommended to orient present and current knowledge: the bioecological paradigms of Ceci and Bronfenbrenner (Curry, 1986). This paper analyzes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of development and tries to apply the levels of influence to one’s own actual development. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Development The updated ecological theory of development of Bronfenbrenner involves the interactive, active interactions among four major parts, namely, ‘process, person, environmental context, and time’ (Lerner, 2001, 239). Different from his first and still extensively applied model of the ecological, or referred to as the ‘nested structures’ paradigm, in the process-person-context-time (PPCT) Bronfenbrenner stresses the concept of ‘proximal processes’ (Damon & Lerner, 2006, 816). These are continuous types of interaction in the environment, like cooing or feeding an infant. An old premise obtained from the bioecological paradigm states (Damon & Lerner, 2006, 816): In order to develop—intellectually, emotionally, socially, and morally—a child requires, for all of them, the same thing: participation in progressively more complex reciprocal activity, on a regular basis over extended periods of time with one or more other persons with whom the child develops a strong, mutual, irrational attachment, and who are committed to that child’s development, preferable for life. Further explaining the individual features of a proximal mechanism, Bronfenbrenner claims that, in order to be developmentally successful, processes should persist long enough to develop into a higher complexity. Basically, according to Kendermann and Valsiner (1995), processes should occur quite regularly, over a prolonged duration of time. The original pioneering ecological model of Bronfenbrenner stressed that human development is an outcome of a ‘person, process, and context’ (Kendermann & Valsiner, 1995, 13), and that growth or development differs due to differences in each of these as developmental components. Based on this previous attempt, Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994 as cited in Damon & Lerner, 2006, 865) initiated two important adjustments in the model. First, they integrated the notion of time in each phase of the ecological system to highlight the function of instability and stability in the importance of social development and developmental mechanism. Second, they broadened their theory about the role of the individual in influencing the process of development (Damon & Lerner, 2006). These two latest constructs were incorporated into the initial paradigm that ecological environments are a cluster of “nested structures, each inside the other like Russian dolls” (Lerner, 2001, 240). Primarily, the initial assumptions and definitions of the systems are still intact. Concisely, Bronfenbrenner argued that a person’s environment can be classified into four rooted systems that function equally to influence the person. ‘Microsystem’ is composed of the personal features of the person’s development in the place of work and in the family such as system-based experience and functions, interpersonal relations, and goal oriented performance (Fitzgerald, Karraker & Luster, 2002). Examples of a child’s microsystems are his/her peers, home, and school. Bronfenbrenner elaborates that in each microsystem context, three aspects have to be taken into account: (1) the activities within which the person and other individuals interrelate, (2) the individuals in varying functions and relationships with the child, and (3) physical structure of material and space (Fitzgerald et al., 2002). ‘Mesosystem’ includes the connection among and between the person’s manifold microsystems. For instance, this would involve the interrelatedness of the home and work contexts such that occurrences in the workplace would affect home performance or behavior. ‘Exosystem’ is composed of episodes that do not directly influence, or are not openly influenced by, the person. For instance, they may comprise media and governmental organizations (Lerner, 2001). ‘Macrosystem’, according to Damon and Lerner (2006), includes societal values and cultural systems and core principles that may be active at the other phases but naturally affect peoples’ performance in their microsystem. Basically, the ‘microsystem’ is a setting that includes the growing child, like the school or the family. The ‘mesosystem’ stands for the intersection between microsystems, like the linkages between extend family and mother-child relations. The ‘exosystem’ embodies the meeting point between an environment that does not include the developing child and one that does, like a home context and parent’s place of work (Fitzgerald et al., 2002). The ‘macrosystem’ embodies cultural and societal factors. The expanded bioecological paradigm more substantially highlights perspectives about the ways time, context, process, and person in concert stimulate development. In the latest paradigm, proximal mechanisms are the strongest factors of development (Fitzgerald et al., 2002), but the effect of those mechanisms relies upon the environment. Bronfenbrenner adds that (Damon & Lerner, 2006, 816): … the establishment and maintenance of patterns of progressively more complex interaction and emotional attachment between caregiver and child depend in substantial degree on the availability and active involvement of another adult who assists, encourages, spells off, gives status to, and expresses admiration and affection for the person caring for and engaging in joint activity with the child. In the paradigm of Bronfenbrenner, individual development is influenced by time in which proximal mechanisms take place. He stresses the effect of what he refers to as ‘macrotime’ or “changing expectations and events in the larger society, both within and across generations, as they affect and are affected by processes and outcomes of human development over the life course” (Lerner, 2001, 240). At the beginning of the new millennium, examining a number of determinants of children’s present health and opportunities for vigorous development and growth in the United States, Bronfenbrenner is a long way from being positive about the level to which the bigger environment cultivates, instead of hindering with, the movement of proximal mechanisms (Damon & Lerner, 2006). Bronfenbrenner observes increasing disorder in families’ lives, which disrupts and weakens the development and strength of activities and relationships that are fundamental for mental development. Furthermore, in his belief numerous of the circumstances resulting in this disorder are the frequently unexpected outcomes of policy judgments (Kendermann & Valsiner, 1995) of public and private organizations. Gaining knowledge of the interactions and relationships of the systems is the most important way of building awareness on how a child grows or develops and what aspects result in malfunction or disruption. A study conducted by Paquette and Ryan (2001) examined the effect of the immediate environment or context on the family microsystem. With technological progress occurring in all forms of organizations, the work context is diverging from a business paradigm and more to a technological framework. Nevertheless, the work environments persist to display mass production work ethic. People remain employed in the traditional factory schedule and women in organizations are also subjected to the same requirements and pressures as their male counterparts (Paquette & Ryan, 2001). All these aspects put the family system at the bottom of the priority list. The volatility and insecurity of family systems, according to Lerner (2001), provides children negligible and weak interactions and relationships with parents and other significant others in their lives and Bronfenbrenner believes that this is the most damaging reality in the development of a child. The disintegration of the microsystem of a child leaves him/her devoid of instruments to discover and understand other components of his/her environment. With the absence of appropriate grownups and guidance or concern, children seek for attention and love in improper places and these actions create difficulties particularly in teenagers like weak self discipline and deviant behavior (Fitzgerald et al., 2002). Even government assistance fails to provide the most favorable environment required for vigorous child development. As stated in the ‘deficit’ paradigm assistance provided by the government for weak families obliges that one should be categorized inadequate or incompetent in some way. This paradigm not just classifies families to be labeled as ‘deficient’, but persuades them as well to become more deficient since the more inadequate a family is the more assistance or support it receives (Paquette & Ryan, 2001). This support model does not alleviate the financial difficulties of families but instead forces them to remain in such poor circumstances. The insufficiencies in the microsystem of a child cannot be substituted by excess support in other systems. Primary relationships, as claimed by Bronfenbrenner, should be those that are permanent like with parents and weaknesses in these relationships or interactions cannot be substituted by others. Strengthening the primary relationship is the way in to improved child development and educators should collaborate to reinforce these primary relationships by building a context that accommodates and supports families (Damon & Lerner, 2006). Educators can enlighten parents about their children’s development requirements. With the major dilemma being the gap between family and work, government regulations concerning family support should be the main precedence giving assistance to families who remain intact and nurture their children. Conclusions Bronfenbrenner’s ecological paradigm integrates all levels of influence on child development to evaluate the root and also the key to quite a few of the mounting emotional and behavioral issues encountered nowadays. The most important and valuable feature of this paradigm is that concerned individuals can work together to nurture and raise children. Additional resources and improved support systems for parents should be accessible for them to have the capacity to fulfill a more important function in their children’s lives which will facilitate enhanced children development. References Damon, W. & Lerner, R. (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development, 6th Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Fitzgerald, H., Karraker, K. & Luster, T. (2002). Infant Development: Ecological Perspectives. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Frank, M. & Curry, N. (1986). The Feeling Child: Affective Development Reconsidered. New York: Routledge. Kendermann, T. & Valsiner, J. (1995). Development of Person-Context Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lerner, R. (2001). Concepts and Theories of Human Development. London: Psychology Press. Paquette, D. & Ryan, J. (2001). “Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory” http://pt3.nl.edu/paquetteryanwebquest.pdf#search=%22ecological%20theory%22 Read More