Consideration of ‘context’

While later iterations of the Bio-ecological Model have somewhat moved away from sole emphasis on ‘context’ (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006), there is no denying its importance and influence in a ‘systems’ approach to understanding human development. According to Downes (2014), a significant achievement of the Bio-ecological Model has

been to draw attention to ‘silent’ background conditions for causal impact in systems, and Downes’ idea of an ‘inclusive system’ is based on identifying contextual supports for

individuals within systems to overcome inertia and develop agency (2014). Therefore, ‘contexts’ for development are still key, even in more up-to-date iterations of the Bio-

ecological paradigm, to how development happens within a relational process.

Bronfenbrenner identifies some features of an optimally structured environment or ‘context’ for child development. One important aspect is the provision of “objects and

environments that invite manipulation and exploration” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006, p. 815), reminiscent of Piaget’s ideas on the child learning through exploration and discovery.

Another, as previously noted, is the creation of stability and consistency but at the same time flexibility (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006), as advocated by Baumrind’s ‘authoritative’

approach. Still another is through strong contact and mutual support between micro-systems, for example home and school, through the concept of the meso-system. However, most important in Bronfenbrenner’s eyes are the ‘proximal processes’ within ‘contexts’:

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, preferably for life

(Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 5)

According to most up-to-date iteration of the model therefore (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006), strong ‘proximal processes’ can provide a buffer in less than ideal ‘contexts’, and in fact Bronfenbrenner draws on the work of Rutter (1985; Rutter et al., 1998) to show that the impact of protective forces such as strong, supportive ‘proximal processes’ with an important adult, on the development of resilience in children is even greater in ‘at-risk’ ‘contexts’. As such, while the latest version of the Bio-ecological Model does still

acknowledge the importance of the micro-, meso-, exo- and macro-systems within which a child develops, such ‘context’ factors are less emphasised than in earlier models, and now in Bronfenbrenner’s work, as in that of Rogers, Gergen and Bowlby, the relationship (process)

is foregrounded. This is consistent with the maturation of developmental psychology

generally, and the move away from simple linear models of causality towards understanding of interacting risk and protective factors (Downes, 2014).

2.4.2.5 Summary.

In summary, there are a number of important theories that can be synthesised through the framework provided by the Bio-ecological conceptualisation of ‘person’ and ‘context’ in synergy, including theories of ‘temperament’ and ‘self-efficacy’, extensive work in

psychology, sociology and early childhood education on ‘dispositions’, and Bourdieu’s ideas on ‘embodiment’ of ‘cultural capital’. Drawing on these theories, as well as those of

Vygotsky and Bowlby explored under the title ‘process’, the idea of internalisation of

experience is central to the synthesised Bio-ecological Framework, so that ‘person’

characteristics are both products and producers of development. Therefore, the explanatory power provided by the Bio-ecological Framework supports five further key Propositions:

Proposition 2: There is a bi-directional, exponential synergy between the personal characteristics of the developing person, and the contexts in which they develop, mediated by the significant relationships they experience.

Personal characteristics influence how the environment and other people within it respond to an individual. In turn, experience of the environment and other people within it is internalised and embodied by the developing person, and forms the basis of future personal characteristics. As such, traditional

dichotomies of nature-vs-nurture are outmoded and irrelevant. A Bio-

ecological framework foregrounds that nature and nurture are synergistic and mutually reinforcing in human development.

Proposition 3: Diversity is a key feature of what it means to be human, so it is

senseless to expect standardisation of outcomes for children or families, socially, emotionally, behaviourally or educationally.

Proposition 4: The course of human development is neither completely free nor completely pre-determined. Human beings are active agents within a narrow

range of choices, defined by complex interactions between personal characteristics and the environments and relationships in which they find themselves.

Proposition 5: Children’s development is inextricably linked with the context in which it occurs.

Proposition 6: Less than optimal contexts can (to some extent) be overcome through the power of positive relationships, and contexts that on the surface appear to be supportive of development in fact lose their power in the absence of supportive relationships. Resilience is best understood as reliant on a

complex interaction of protective and risk factors in interaction with the personal characteristics of the child.

2.4.3 ‘Time’.

However, even this understanding of relationships (‘process’) occurring between individuals with a diversity of characteristics (‘person’) in a variety of ‘contexts’, does not tell the whole story, and one must also consider the ‘time’ at which these processes occur,

both in historical terms and within the life-course of the individual (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006). Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-ecological Model has sometimes been criticised for its lack of emphasis on the temporal dimension to development and systems’ functioning (Downes, 2014), and even Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006, p. 796) concede that “the 1979 Volume scarcely mentions the term” time. Nevertheless, changes over time, particularly with

regards to patterns of child-rearing, have been a feature of Bronfenbrenner’s work since the 1950’s (Bronfenbrenner, 1958).

This culminates in Bronfenbrenner and Morris’ (2006) chapter, where ‘time’ is referenced in the very first paragraph, indicating that development “extends over the life

course, across successive generations, and through historical time, both past and future” (p. 793). In fact the word ‘time’ is used on no less than eighty-seven occasions in that chapter, and it is referred to as “a defining property of the Bio-ecological paradigm” (p. 820). The idea

of time in a Bio-ecological sense (chrono-system) refers both to time in the individual life- course of a human being, and socio-cultural changes over time.

2.4.3.1 ‘Time’ in the life-course.

The more evolved Bio-ecological model (2006) draws heavily on the work of Elder (e. g. Elder, Van Nguyen and Caspi, 1985) which showed that the impact of experiences was altered significantly based on when in the life-course they occurred. For example, the

differential effects on young women and on their mothers (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006). The Bio-ecological Model predicts that the age at which a person experiences a significant event, personal or historical, will influence developmental outcomes based on that event. This is consistent with Bourdieu’s contention that advantages experienced in early childhood are likely to become cumulative over ‘time’. Brooker (2015) gives the example

that children from advantaged backgrounds tend to become literate early, and by the time children from disadvantaged backgrounds catch up, the skill of literacy is more commonplace and so less valued, rendering their achievement seemingly less impressive. “Bourdieu

emphasises that cultural capital requires the longest possible time of acquisition, and it may be too late to catch up when children begin statutory schooling” (Brooker, 2015, p. 40).

This sociological work is supported by research in psychology on ‘sensitive periods’ for development. This refers to the idea that there are particular times early in a child’s life that are vitally important to development, and if opportunities for enrichment are missed at these times, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to ‘catch up’ in developmental terms (Berk,

2009). Attachment Theory relies on such ideas, and there is extensive research evidence supporting the concept that early social and emotional development profoundly impacts later outcomes, as described above. However, much of the evidence for the idea of ‘sensitive periods’ stems from neuropsychological work dating back to the early research of Hubel and

Wiesel (1970) – if kittens were denied visual stimulation after birth, the parts of their brains associated with vision (occipital lobe) atrophied and vision could never be restored. Many studies with children who have experienced significant deprivation in early childhood (such as the Romanian orphan studies) have noted similar findings on a variety of measures of developmental outcomes such as cognitive, social, emotional and behavioural indicators (e. g. Beckett et al., 2006; O’Connor et al., 2000; Rutter et al., 1998).

The idea of a sensitive period for development is also a central platform of the argument presented by nativists in the field of psycholinguistics (Chomsky, 1969; Pinker, 1994) – if language learning were based on environmental input such as reward and imitation as indicated by Behaviourists (Skinner, 1957) then it should not matter when that input is received, but research and the experiences of so-called ‘feral children’ such as the famous ‘Genie’ (Curtiss, 1977) would seem to show that indeed it does matter, and if a first language

is not learned early in childhood, it may not be learned to any degree of complexity at all (Berk, 2009).

However, while granting the importance of early experiences, it may be that

development is not set in stone, hence the increasingly preferred use of the term ‘sensitive’, rather than ‘critical’, period. For example, early disadvantage associated with coming from a home low in cultural capital, is likely to persist throughout a child’s school career (Bourdieu,

1997; Brooker, 2015), but Reay (2010) reminds us that habituses are permeable and responsive to what is going on around them. Current circumstances are not just there to be acted upon, but are internalised and become yet another layer to add to those from earlier socialisations. There are also some dissenting voices in psychology to the idea of sensitive periods, most notably John Bruer (e. g. 1999), who refers to ‘the myth of the first three years’, and with regard to second language learning, Ellis (2012) indicates that overall the

available evidence speaks against the idea. Even among those in favour of a sensitive period, there is no clear consensus in the literature on when the ‘window of opportunity’ closes

(Ellis, 2012).

Nevertheless, there is a significant body of research to show that the synapses or brain connections that have been reinforced by virtue of repeated experience in early life tend to

become permanent; the synapses that were not used often enough in the early years are eliminated – in this way experiences (positive or negative) that children have in their early lives influence the ways their brains will be wired in adulthood (Shore, 1997). This

phenomenon is known as ‘synaptic pruning’ (see Berk, 2009 for an overview) and it gives

extensive support to the prediction of the Bio-ecological Model that the time in one’s life that an experience happens holds considerable explanatory power in terms of the impact of that experience. However, Elder’s work, which was influential in Bronfenbrenner’s

conceptualisation of the chrono-system, also recognises the impact of time in the socio- historical sense, and therefore, so does the Bio-ecological Model: “The lifecourse of individuals is embedded in and shaped by the historical times and events they experience over their lifetime” (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006, p. 821).