Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Ecology as a study of the interrelation of beings and their environment has taken a broader concept, influencing other disciplines from a wide variety of fields. The ecological perspective can be seen as an approach in which the focus is on the interactions and the transactions between people and their environment (Greene, 2008). This can be seen through the main elements of focus in the ecological perspective; one of the main concepts in studying the ecological traditions lies in social theories and development psychology. The core of the ecological perspective is ecology, which serves as the basis for the interpretation as well as source for the major terms employed in the concept (Bronfenbrenner,1979).
With more and more practical implementation of the ecological perspective in a variety of disciplines, there is an interest in studying the theoretical foundations of this perspective.
This essay will provide a comprehensive overview of the theoretical concepts in the ecological perspective, its strengths and weakness, and several examples on the way this perspective is integrated into practical aspects.
Theoretical Concepts
The ecological perspective refers to several ecological models that study a numeral factors within the environment that shape peoples behaviour. The factors of the environment might be related to both, physical and socio-cultural surroundings, which include environmental and policy variables within a wide range of influences at many levels (Sallis et al, 2006). The purpose of such models is to seek and identify the causes of a particular behaviour in the environment, according to which an intervention might be designed (McLeroy et al., 1988).
One of the ecological models as proposed by Bronfenbrenner defines the ecological perspective as the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation, throughout the life course between an active , growing human being and his or her environment. This model derives its main terms from the field of ecology, in which the ecological environment is the arrangement of structures, each contained within the next (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), while the levels of influence in such environment are employed in Microsystems meco-system, macro- system and exo-systems. The microsystem levels can be described as the personal interactions within a specific setting.
The setting can be seen as the place in which the person can engage in different activities and play different roles, e.g. home, school, hospital, etc. The physical features of the place, the roles played, the time, and the activity, all represent elements of the setting. A mesosystem, on the other hand, represents the interrelations between major settings, for example, for a student, mesosystem might be represented through the interrelations between home and a school or college.
The exosystem contains the structures, in which a person does not participate, but influences the immediate setting in which the person is located. In that regard, the exosystem can be seen as the forces in social systems, such as governmental institutions and structures, example, the distribution of goods, communications, transportations, and other social networks (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). A macrosystem is mainly concerned with the patterns of the culture and subculture, examined in structural terms as well as carriers of information and ideology. The work of Bronfenbrenner can be considered as the traditional representation of the ecological perspective, upon which this perspective was further expanded and modified.
The aforementioned model was slightly modified to categorise the level of influence into two broad categories, intra- individual (person) and extra individual (environment). The intra influences included individual attributes, beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours, while the extra influences included such aspects environmental topography, social and cultural contexts and policies (Spence and Lee, 2003). It can be stated that the changes that result from a particular influence are mostly categorised into two approaches, which are adaptation and coping. Adaptation can be defined as the capacity to conduct adjustments to the changes in the environmental conditions (Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, 2007).
The latter is utilized in improving the individual-environment fit, which can be achieved through changes at intra-individual or extra individual levels (Spence and Lee, 2003). Coping on the other hand, refers to a form of adaptation that implies struggle, and its generally used to refer to the response to negative conditions. The structural model of the environment adapted from Bronfenbrenner was categorised in a hierarchical multilevel and multidimensional fashion, which describes a dynamic system that operates in space and time. The way the system was adapted can be seen in Fig 1.
It should be noted that the theoretical models of the ecological perspective reviewed in Spence and Lee(2003) outlined other classifications of the environmental influences, among which are the availability and the constraints of resources, the physical structure, the social structure, and cultural and media message. The influence of resource is a significant factor, as it will be outlined in the implications sectors, where to understand a phenomenon the assessment of the factor of resources is essential. The resources were also outlined in Berkman and Glass (2000) in which model the social networks were connected to health.
The model was adapted to the health context and thus, the micro level influence included factors that were affecting health behaviours such as the forces of social influence, levels of social engagement and participation, controlling the contact with infectious diseases, and access to material goods and resources (Berkman and Glass, 2000).
Another adaptation to the ecological model was that in which the levels of influence were expanded into a broader context to include intrapersonal factors, interpersonal processes, institutional factors, community factors, and public policy (McLeroy et al., 1988). Such model was modified specifically for analysing health promotion, where the outcome of the influence of aforementioned factors is patterned behaviour, that is the subject of the analysis in this conceptual model.
The rationale for the provided adjustment can be seen as different levels of factors will facilitate assessing the unique characteristics of different levels of interventions. It should be noted that interventions is an essential aspect in the assessment of the theoretical foundations of ecological perspective, where the theory serves as a method of conceptualising a particular model.
Within the field of environmental psychology, the ecological perspective was one of the areas of emphasis through the span of the fields development. With a variety of ecological models, which were adapted into different fields, for example, health promotion, physical activities, developmental psychology, these models share many common characteristics, which form the ecological perspective in general. These characteristics include the focus on the dynamic interaction between the individual and his/her environment, the focus on the person and the environment as a single entity, combining concepts from many disciplines, and taking a context-specific view of behaviour (Greene, 2008).
It is noted that the ecological perspective shares common concepts from the systems theory, which is the transdisciplinary study of the abstract organisation of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992). The common characteristics can be seen when assuming the complex phenomena are the people and their activities. Additionally, common notions exist between the two theories, for example, interface, which is the point of interaction between the individual and the environment, where the difference might be seen in that the emphasis in ecological perspective is on interfaces concerning individuals and small groups (Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, 2007).
Sharing concepts with systems theories, the ecological perspective also contribute to the ecosystem perspective, a perspective which was derived from the systems theories and ecology. Being mainly applied in social work, the ecosystems perspective focus on the complexity of transactions occurring within a system, guiding the balance between the individual and the environment (Mattaini, 2008).
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths and the weakness of the ecological perspective can be divided between those general to the perspective and those specific for a particular ecological model.
The strengths can be outlined through the benefits of the different features of the ecological perspective. One of such features is taking account of the contexts of the environment. The reliance on such attribute as well as the variety of contexts that might be integrated in a specific model makes it easier to allows apply the ecological perspective to a variety of disciplines and fields.
The areas of social work practice, in which the knowledge about the context can be valued, include prisons, hospitals, and schools. In the example of school, the value of the ecological approach is suggested through relating the knowledge about the context to the key occupation group in such setting, e.g. teachers or other professionals (Davies, 2002). Similarly, working with children and their families, the importance of the understanding the context can be seen one of the ecological approachs strengths that advocates the use of such approach in social work.
The context in such case is within the childs family, the community and the culture, understanding which facilitates obtaining an insight into the childs development (Beckett, 2006). Additionally, such strength allowed the inclusion of the ecological approach in the national Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, in which the assessment of the childrens needs is conducted taking account of three domains, developmental needs, parents or caregivers capacities, and wider environmental factors (Department of Health, 2000).
Nevertheless, it should be stated that the utilisation of contexts might present challenges to researches. Such challenges are mainly statistical and are mentioned about the area of ecological psychology, although it might be assumed that the same can be witnessed in other areas as well. A representation of such statistical challenges can be seen in the usage of physical variables to address individual outcomes, rather than general outcomes (Winkel et al., 2009).
Another strong argument in favour of the ecological perspective can be seen in its broad approach toward studying the relationship between the environment and the individual. The fact that many of the levels of influence include those to which the individual is not directly attached, but still influenced by them, is one of the strengths of the ecological perspectives. Additionally, it can be stated that the limitations of the prevailing scientific approaches to study human development contributed to considering the ecological perspective, proposed by Bronfenbrenner.
The broadness strength can be rephrased as the ability to examine multiperson systems without limitation to a single setting, and taking into account both the immediate setting and the environment beyond (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The broadness strength can be rephrased as the ability to examine of multiperson systems without limitation to a single setting, and taking into account both the immediate setting and the environment beyond
The weakness of the ecological perspective can be seen in the models adapted for social behaviour, although as stated earlier they might apply to other models as well. The weakness is mainly represented through the lack of specificity for conceptualisation of a particular problem.
The lack of such specificity combined with broadness approach highly subjected to interpretation. For example, the approach mentioned earlier in terms of generally assessing children in need, can be seen the same in terms of asylum seeking and refugee children specifically (National Childrens Bureau, 2006). Thus, it might be stated that the broadness of the approach makes it applicable to various contexts, and at the same time, the conceptualization of such applicability can be a difficult task.
In other cases, implementing the ecological approach while working with the population should make account of the ecological fallacy, which can be defined as relating the knowledge about a groups past behaviour to generalise them as real events(example, children brought up in deprived areas always end up as poor adults) (Adams et al,2009). Such weakness can be evident when working with such groups as confined individuals.
Thus, actual risk assessment has little success in some social work cases(Davies, 2002). For example, an experienced child protection service user may develop a strong capacity to predict situations of high risk drawing in part of what is observed in the environment which the child is found as well as the formal assessment risk framework but the outcome of this may have an adverse effect as that situation is most likely to be different from previously assessed ones(Healy,2005)
The same can be said about the identification of the interventions for specified problems (McLeroy et al., 1988). Such weakness is mainly mediated through the various adaptations of ecological models, which take the main framework and modify it to suit specific purposes. Additionally, other weaknesses can be viewed in terms of model applied for specific purposes, rather than general disadvantages.
For example, in health promotion, the limitation of the McLeroy model was said to be vague in terms of distinguishing the levels of intervention and settings (Richard et al, 1996). Additional weaknesses, which might be generalised toward all models under the ecological perspective, are concerned with the implementation in practice. Also, social work like any other discipline may find designing and implementing ecological programmes a challenge due to the complexity of the approach and the costs involved in operating it (Richard et al, 2004).
Theoretical Implications
The basis for the theoretical implications of the ecological perspective can be seen through guiding and design intervention programmes, through addressing the way an interaction occurs at various levels of the specific theoretical model. Hence, following such principles within different areas and disciplines, the framework serves as an indication for which factors should be enabled, enforced and facilitated.
Taking for example the field of education, the ecological perspective might be used to provide a model for the integration of the technology in school. Such example was investigated in Zhao and Frank (2003), where the authors utilized an ecological metaphor of introducing a zebra mussel into the Great Lakes to identify the factors influencing the implementation of computer uses. Following the common elements of the reviewed framework, it can be stated that the school represent a setting within Bronfenbrenner systems, while Great Lakes is the setting within the chosen ecological metaphor.
The difference in the approach proposed in Zhao and Frank is in using an ecosystem, rather than setting, and thus, the context was narrowed to the schools, rather than societies. Paralleling computer uses within species and innovative technologies with exotic species, the authors constructed a framework for the interaction between the elements of the ecosystem. Such framework allowed narrowing down the levels of the influences, with the ultimate goal of determining the technology uses in classroom.
The test of the framework revealed that the dynamics of the school as an ecosystem affect the interactions between the new and existing species, that is computer uses and innovative technologies. Having a hypothetical ecology core, the framework based on the ecological perspective had practical implications among which is the focus on teachers as facilitators of change, the provision of training opportunities (Zhao and Frank, 2003).
With the following being related to the field of education as well as to the technology field, it can be stated that the implications of the ecological perspective are not necessarily applied through ecology metaphors and parallels to the nature. The field of sociology can be seen as of the most prominent examples of the application of ecological perspective. The purposes of applying the ecological perspective in social context might vary from identifying factors and determining cause to understanding the dynamics within a specific setting. As an example of the latter, the ecological perspective was applied in Jiang and Begun (2002) to understand the factors influencing the changes in the local physician supply in a particular area. The modelling process can be seen through the following steps:
- Applying the dynamics of growth in a population to the population of a particular specialty type of physicians, and formulating a model.
- Identifying the intrinsic properties of the selected population. In this case the dimensions identified for such purpose include the width of the physicians niche and capital intensity.
- Describe the environment. In this case the dimensions for description are munificence, concentration, and diversity.
- Outline the resources in the environment, e.g. the size of the patient population, the hospital supply, and the economic wealth of the environment.
- Applying the factors and the descriptions to the identified model.
- Testing the model.
The abovementioned utilization of the ecological perspective was proven applicable, and accordingly, several practical mechanisms were derived from such study. These mechanisms might be useful to identify the determinants of changes in one of the dimensions of the population or the indicated resources, such as the size, the specialty. Similarly, such model can be implemented in social work practices, as it will be illustrated in the following sections. The practitioner investigates each of the properties/characteristics of the systems participating in interaction processes. Accordingly, the individual or the population will be investigated as well as pressure factors causing the problem. Finally, an intervention is planned to deal with the factors contributing to the causality of the problem.
Another practical example of the application of the ecological perspective can be seen through investigating the changes that influence a particular part of the population. An example of the latter can be seen in a study by McHale, Dotterer, and Kim (2009), in which the methodological issues for researching the media and the development of youth were investigated in the context of the ecological perspective. The emphasis in such approach can be seen through the focus on activities, being a reflection of development, as outlined by Larson and Verma (1999), cited in McHale, Dotterer, and Kim (2009).
Another ecological influence on studying the development of youth can be seen in the multilayered contexts, within which individuals are embedded (McHale et al., 2009). It can be stated that the multilayered contexts are a representation of the levels of influences, whereas the youth, as a population are the subject of these influences. Thus, the environment in such perspective is not perceived as a separate entity, but rather as a collection of those levels of influences, that is contexts within the scope of the aforementioned model. The ecological model chosen for the depiction of such influences was the traditional Bronfenbrenner model, while the factors of influence were obtained through a review of the literature, as stated earlier.
The core of the model, which is the individual or the child in this context, is represented through a set of characteristics, such as the activity level, sociability, interests, activities, and others. Additionally, the most proximate level of influences to the child is the microsystem level, comprising of such factors as family, peer group, community neighbourhood, and schools (McHale et al., 2009). The applicability of this model can be see through outlining the context of the youth development, where the established framework narrows the areas of research to specific directions, which might imply particular methodological considerations. One of such considerations can be seen through the identification of variables, specifically in quantitative researches that investigate causal relationships.
The same can be seen about extraneous variables, which the framework might indicate. Other suggestions for the utilization of the ecological perspective in youth development researches might include highlighting the influence of specific factors, e.g. family income, or education, on youth activities, and assessing the role of the individuals themselves in their activities.
With the ecological perspective having a social context, such contexts often intersect with health approach. Among the attempts of integrating the ecological perspective into health improvement is a proposed model which is aimed at identifying the factors that will contribute to the success of tobacco control programmes (Richard et al,2004). Similarly, the factors integrated into the perspective were derived from literature, namely Scheirers framework which was successfully used in fields such as mental health.
The factors of the levels of influence were assigned to identify the factors of success, which were then tested as variables in a case study. The ecological perspective proved to be successful for its designated purpose, despite some limitations, and helped to identify configurations of environmental, organizational and professional characteristics that will facilitate the implementation of the programme (Richard et al, 2004).
Illustrations of Theory in Social Work
Generally, it can be stated that the application of the ecological perspective in social work is mainly concerned with assessment and communication. Taking the example of practitioners working with families, the assessment might imply identifying factors related to the families culture, subculture and race.
One of the methods of working with family can be seen through group therapy and family therapy. Family therapy, which is grounded in the ecological perspective, is specifically emphasized, as most clients have family systems to work with. The assessment might be performed through the way through analyzing communication occurring between the family members participating in the therapy. For example, the practitioner might consider the way messages are sent and received within the family unit as well as the paths of communication. Such elements of the communication will provide an insight into the social environment in which the family functions, which can be seen as a part of the treatment.
Another model used to identify family problems is Minuchins model (Pardeck, 1996). Utilizing such model, practitioners will attempt to identify the factors of pressure, external for the family unit as well as coming from within. Such factors can be seen through either a pressure on a single member of the family, pressure on the entire family, pressure occurring when moving through life cycles, and idiosyncratic factors unique to the family.
The identification of the type of pressure can be implemented through the communication approach previously mentioned. The intervention can be seen in making corrections to the source of pressure, restoring the balance between the family unit and the environment. The correction can be seen through elimination the source of pressure, if possible, helping the family develop coping mechanism to deal with the pressure, inspecting the larger system in which the family functions, suggesting policies that might have a positive impact on the familys interaction, and other. The weakness of such approach can be seen in the ecological fallacy, mentioned earlier.
On the one hand, practitioners might generalize the intervention or previous knowledge, assuming that all families experience the same pressure. At the same time, such generalization might not be applicable in present context.
Child protection is concerned with protection children from maltreatment, which according to the ecological perspective is the result of interaction between several factors and systems. Thus, the role of the practitioner can be seen in identifying the interactions that occur and the causality of maltreatment. The practitioner will gather information from the settings, in which the child interacts, including family assessment, in which the family background, history, and structure will be analyzed, the cultural differences, environmental factors in the community, such as poverty, violence, etc, and the services available to the family and the child.
Identifying the external factor, individual factors of the child should be assessed as well, in terms of growth, development, identity development, and others. Such information will be used by the practitioner to identify risks and protective factors, based on which an intervention will be planned to change the conditions and the behaviors that cause risks of maltreatment to occur. With the goal of the intervention set, the plan of the intervention will be implemented.
Ecological Perspective in Issues of Inequality and Discrimination
With discrimination and inequality being social phenomena, the ecological perspective can be used to explain them. Inequality, in that regard, occurs when a differentiation exists in hierarchical structures. Differentiation is perceived in ecological theories in static and dynamic perspectives, where in terms of statics, differentiation is the difference between groups concerning a particular variable, while in terms of dynamics, differentiation refers to processes that produce and maintain differences within and between groups. The ecological perspective helps in explaining inequality, viewing it as complex and multidimensional phenomenon (Maclean and Harrison,2006).
These factors include such distinct clusters: cultural differences, religious differences, compositional differences, and differential treatment (Micklin and Poston, 1998). In terms of discrimination, it can be viewed as a behaviour, which is recognized as a function of the person-environment interaction. Thus, the ecological perspective not only helps in understanding such behaviour and the influential factors, but also the interventions that might be designed in social justice advocacy (Greenleaf and Williams, 2009). Although the latter is mainly connected to the field of psychological counselling, it might be used in social work as well.
Nevertheless, the utilisation of the ecological perspective in explaining such aspects as inequality does not imply individualistic approaches, that is to say the ecological perspective does not operate on the micro-level, as ecologists view questions of such scale as unimportant. It should be stated that being perceived as unimportant does not necessarily mean that the ecological perspective is not applicable in such cases, where several studies found the ecological perspective to be relevant(Micklin and Poston, 1998). Social workers are aware of the importance of context in service users lives and ,understanding and responding to the individual in their environment is an essential part of social work practice(Healy,2005)
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the ecological perspective is a useful approach to analyse and explain various phenomena. The principle of examining the interrelations between the individual and the environment allows designing a framework that can be utilised in various fields and disciplines. The ecological perspective has a great potential, which can be used not only as an explanation and investigation of a phenomenon, but also as a useful mean for designing interventions for problems relating to social work as well as other disciplines(Payne,2005).
References
Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (eds.), (2009) Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Beckett, C., (2006) Essential theory for social work practice, London: SAGE.
Berkman, L. F. & Glass, T. (2000), Social integration, social networks, social support and health. In: Berkman, L. F. & Kawachi, I. (eds.) Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bronefenbrenner, U. (1977), Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.
Davies, M., (2002) The Blackwell companion to social work, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Department Of Health, (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. Web.
Grenne, R. R. (2008), Human behavior theory & social work practice, New Brunswick, N.J., Aldine Transaction.
Greenleaf, A. T. & Williams, J. M. (2009), Supporting Social Justice Advocacy: A Paradigm Shift towards an Ecological Perspective Journal for Social Action in Counselling and Psychology [Online], 2. Web.
Healy, K. (2005) Social Work Theories in Context: Creating frameworks for Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan Heylighen, F. & Joslyn, C. (1992), What is Systems Theory? [Online]. Principia Cybernetica Web.
Jiang, H. J. & Begun, J. W. (2002) Dynamics of change in local physician supply: an ecological perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1525-1541.
Maclean, S. And Harrison, R. (2008) SOCIAL WORK THEORY;A Straight forward Guide for Practice Assessors and Placement Supervisors.Staffordshire:Kirwin Maclean.
Mattaini, M. A. (2008) Ecosystems Theory. In: SOWERS, K. M. & DULMUS, C. N. (eds.) Comprehensive handbook of social work and social welfare. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Mchale, S. M., Dotterer, A. & Kim, J.Y. (2009), An Ecological Perspective on the Media and Youth Development. American Behavioural Scientist, 52, 1186-1203.
Mcleroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A. & Glanz, K. (1988), An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs. Health Educ Behav, 15, 351-377.
Micklin, M. & Poston, D. L. (1998), Continuities in sociological human ecology, New York, Plenum Press.
National Childrens Bureau, (2006) The Ecological Approach to the Assessment of Asylum Seeking and Refugee Children. Web.
Pardeck, J. T., (1996) Social work practice : an ecological approach, Westport: Auburn House.
Payne, M. (2005), Modern Social Work Theory (3rd Ed), New York: Palgrave MACMILLAN.
Richard, L., Lehoux, P., Breton, E., DENIS, J,L., Labrie, L. & Leonard, C. (2004), Implementing the ecological approach in tobacco control programs: results of a case study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 409-421.
Richard, L. P., Kishchuk, L., Prlic, N. & H. Green, L. W. (1996), Assessment of the Integration of the Ecological Approach in Health Promotion Programs. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION, 10, 318-328.
Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K. & KERR, J. (2006), An Ecological Approach to Creating Active Living Communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297322.
Spence, J. C. & Lee, R. E.( 2003), Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 7-24.
Winkel, G., Saegert, S. & Evans, G. W. (2009), An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 318-328.
Zastrow, C. & KirstI-Ashman, K. K.( 2007), Understanding human behavior and the social environment, Belmont, CA, Thomson Higher Education.
Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. A. (2003), Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807-840.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.