An ecological framework

Ecological approaches⁸⁵ to wellbeing rest on the assumption that “human

development [that is, changes in people over their life-span (Reber & Reber, 2001, p. 195)] can only be understood in reference to structural ecosystems” (Marks et al., 2000). Bronfenbrenner (1979) explains this process as:

the progressive, mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations

85 Ecological theory is variously referred to as the “ecological theory of human development”

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979), an “ecological perspective” or a “systems theory approach” (Marks et al.,

between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which these settings are embedded (p. 13).

For community psychologists⁸⁶, the ‘ecological metaphor’ – defined by Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005, p. 71) as “the interaction between individuals and the multiple social systems in which they are embedded” – constitutes the key paradigm in wellbeing (Angelique & Culley, 2007). Through the lens of the ecological metaphor, Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005, p. 33) explain that:

human problems and competencies…[are viewed]…within the context of characteristics of the individual (for example coping skills), micro-level analysis (for example family, peer group), meso-level analysis, settings that mediate between smaller systems and the larger society (for example work settings, schools, neighbourhood organisations) and macro-level analysis (for example social policies, social class, social norms).

As in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory, systems are nested and interdependent such that “any change within any one part of the system will have ripple effects that impact on other parts of the system” (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 71). This principle is recognised in policy approaches to wellbeing in New Zealand. For example, the Ministry of Social Development observes in its 2008 social wellbeing report that “the outcome domains are interconnected” and cites as an example

“participation in leisure and recreation is a good thing in itself, but it may also lead to improved physical and mental health, and better social networks” (p. 4). In this study, participants can be seen as individuals with particular characteristics, as members of families and other groups such as sports teams and kapa haka⁸⁷ groups, as participants in settings such as their geographic community, their children’s schools, or their churches. They are also seen as located within the wider context of the influence of social policies which affect them, such as those related to welfare and education. ‘Ripple’ (or ‘flow on’) effects are evident in the way in which the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) led to the Adult Literacy Strategy and then to the funding of the programmes in which the adults in the study are participating, as described in Chapter One. This current study is

86 This is my academic background and orientation as described in Chapter One.

87 Māori song and dance (Ryan, 1994).

exploring the ‘flow on’ effects through other levels in the system: the participants themselves and the various social systems they are connected to.

Taking an ecological perspective, Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005) have developed a framework for wellbeing which encompasses what they have called ‘personal’,

‘relational’ and ‘collective’ dimensions. In explaining their framework, they observe that:

At the individual level, well-being is manifested in terms of personal control, choice, self-esteem, competence, independence, political rights and a positive identity. At the relational level, the individual is embedded in a network of positive and supportive relationships and can participate freely in social, community and political life. The person is an active member of the community. At the community and societal level, the individual is able to acquire such basic resources as employment, income, education and housing. Thus, well-being is not a matter of individual health, but rather a state of affairs that involves a transaction between individuals and supportive relationships and environments. (Stokols, 2003, as cited in Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 28)

In Nelson and Prilleltensky’s (2005) approach, personal wellbeing is related to factors which enhance the wellbeing of individuals, but individuals are not seen atomistically. Rather they are seen as embedded in a network of social relations connecting them to other people and to wider societal institutions which affect their wellbeing in multiple ways. The notion of relational wellbeing embodies the quality of these relationships. People having a say in decisions which affect them, being able to develop and express their identities, having respect for differences between people and having one’s differences respected, and collaborative processes for resolving conflicts, are aspects of relational wellbeing. Trust, and norms of reciprocity – that is, bidirectional interactions and transactions between people and between people and institutions, which may vary between people and across groups (Stansfield, 1999) – are important components of relational

wellbeing (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005).

Collective wellbeing refers to society’s resources, how these are distributed and how this distribution is viewed (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005). Community structures, institutions and organisations providing social goods (such as

transport, water and sewage systems, education, libraries, recreational spaces and activities and health services) are resources for wellbeing (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005 ). Collective wellbeing refers to the extent that these are available and to whom. The term also draws attention to the notion of responsibility for wellbeing and how this is shared between individuals, families, communities and society as a whole. In Nelson and Prilleltensky’s view (2005, p. 58), “fair and equitable

allocation of bargaining powers, resources and obligations in society” –

“distributive justice” – is essential for personal and communal wellbeing.

Wellbeing – for everyone – is attained through “holistic practice” that attends to personal, relational and collective domains (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2002, as cited in Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 57).

Whilst many aspects of wellbeing in this definition such as its transactional nature are included in other definitions (for example Bronfenbrenner, 1979), Nelson and Prilleltensky’s work is especially important in the context of this study because it reflects an understanding that conceptualisations of wellbeing have cultural and ideological components: that is, wellbeing is defined and realised differently by different groups of people and some ideas about wellbeing are more valued than others, just as is the case for literacy and family literacy as shown in Chapters Two and Four. Historic antecedents to wellbeing, such as colonisation in countries such as New Zealand, are also acknowledged in this framework (Glover, Dudgeon, &

Huygens, 2005). As well as having had direct detrimental effects on wellbeing, colonisation has resulted in loss of power to determine the structure of society itself.

Nelson and Prilleltensky’s (2005) explication of the place of values (ideology) in wellbeing is evident in their articulation of their own beliefs and values which have given rise to and shaped the framework. This is most evident in their argument that what shapes wellbeing is influenced by what is valued in society, and the explication of factors which influence wellbeing in these terms. They observe that the factors they describe as contributing to or expressing wellbeing are embedded in, and expressed in the context of, a particular set of values and a particular vision

of a ‘good society’. Their goal of social (“distributive”) justice permeates their framework in which issues of power and voice and the balancing of

self-determination, autonomy and independence with shared responsibility, obligation and interdependence, are regarded as central concerns in the achievement of wellbeing (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 58). This framework can, therefore, also be regarded as a moral framework in which actions of individuals, groups and societal institutions can be judged in terms of their contribution to the wellbeing of everyone in the society across all social and cultural groups.

In acknowledging the place of values in wellbeing, differences in worldviews are also acknowledged in Nelson and Prilleltensky’s (2005) framework. The dominance of Western individualistic worldviews is recognised as often problematic for non-dominant groups with differing cultural practices and perspectives. However, even in Western culture where individualism is valued, unmitigated individualism is recognised as counter-productive to the common good (Damon, 1995; Etzioni, 1996; Sen, 1999a, 1999b, as cited in Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005). Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005) argue instead for the synergistic balance of the fulfilment of individual needs and aspirations, engagement in mutually satisfying social

relations and the realisation of collective responsibility and contribution. In other words, they argue for less individualism and more collectivism, and attendance to the quality of relationships to achieve this, for everyone’s sake. This necessarily includes the accommodation of differing ways of being in and of perceiving the world that different people and groups may have. In this study, relevant non-dominant perspectives on wellbeing are those of Māori and Pacific peoples.

Māori perspectives of wellbeing

Based on belief in the interdependence of people and the environment, as I

observed in Chapter Three (A. Durie, 1997; Durie, 1998; Walker, 2004), wellbeing in Māori terms is thus also ecological. As Arohia Durie (1997, p. 146) explains, belief in the interdependence of all things is ‘fundamental’ and ‘integral’ to Māori

‘thinking and conduct’, shaped over time through the telling and interpretation of the creation stories, the personification of ancient deities and heroes, the

“eponymous ancestors” and the telling of whakapapa⁸⁸. These genealogical

accounts set out the relationships between “the living and the ancestors, the deities and the land” (A. Durie, 1997, p. 147). In Māori thinking there is, therefore, not really a separation between self and family or between self and the

environment in the sense that is so in Western thinking; people are “one part of a complex whole” and are not above it. Thus, the health of all aspects of the

environment is regarded as essential for the health and wellbeing of people (A.

Durie, 1997; Rawiri, 2005). A systems perspective is inherent in Mason Durie’s (1998, p. 71) description of Māori health as “an interrelated phenomenon rather than an intra-personal one” in which “poor health is typically regarded as a breakdown in harmony between the individual and the wider environment”.

There are a number of models for Māori wellbeing, all based on a holistic framework (Durie, 1998; Pere, 1997; Pitama, Robertson, Cram, Gillies, Huria, &

Dallas-Katoa, 2007) ⁸⁹. These models all include taha wairua (the spiritual side of wellbeing), taha hinengaro (thoughts and feelings), taha tinana (the physical side) and taha whānau (extended family). These four aspects are the basis of Mason Durie’s (1998) Whare Tapa Whā model on which many Māori health developments have been based (Rochford, 2004). Taha hinengaro equates to mental wellbeing and taha tinana to physical wellbeing, but family and ‘the spiritual side’ are also critically important in a Māori view of wellbeing in which the integration and correct balance of all four aspects are necessary for good health. It is therefore a much more holistic and ‘unified’ conceptualisation of wellbeing, perhaps especially through its spiritual base, than is typically the case in Western thinking (Rochford, 2004). It is consistent, however, with “new orientations and global trends: general systems theory, family psychotherapy, the community health movement, health promotion, primary health care, and calls for de-medicalisation of the human life cycle” (Durie, 1998, p. 78).

This meaning of wellbeing places into context the impact of historical loss of land and the ongoing experiences of racism that are lived on a daily basis by Māori (Love, 2008). The land losses were a spiritual and familial separation, as well as a loss of means of physical survival – a food source and an economic base – which are only now, very slowly and only to a small degree, being returned or

89 These are Te Whare Tapa Whā, Te Wheke (the octopus) and the Meihana Model respectively.

compensated for, enabling some restoration of this critical base. Love (2008) graphically points out, however, the powerful effects of the mix of blatant and subtle racism that persists and which directly affect Māori wellbeing and constrains the use of culturally-effective approaches to achieving wellbeing. He notes also the considerable resistance by Māori to dominant discourses of health and wellbeing and of Māori health and wellbeing that have always been, and continue to be, displayed. Progress in Māori wellbeing, which lags behind that of Pākehā New Zealanders, is evident and is acknowledged (Durie, 1998; Ministry of Social Development, 2008) but there is a long way to go before Māori enjoy equal wellbeing. One of the major barriers for continuing improvement is considered to be insufficient Māori control – rangitiratanga (Durie, 1998; Humpage, 2006).

Pacific peoples’ perspectives on wellbeing

As observed in Chapter Two, Pacific peoples, like Māori, enjoy a historical valuing of collectivity and extended kinship networks and obligations (Meleisea &

Schoeffel, 1998) and a similar connectedness of all things realised through oral traditions which “define the uniqueness of each Pacific ethnicity” (Gibbs, 2008, p.

41). Strong family and community connectedness remain important factors in the wellbeing of Pacific people living in New Zealand, extending even into workplaces where whole workforces or company departments may have been from one Pacific group (Gibbs, 2008). Cultural identity, in a context in which Pacific cultures are minority cultures and in a context in which they are separated from their homelands, has emerged as another important factor in the wellbeing of Pacific settlers. According to Mulitalo-Lauta (2001), people’s cultural identity in a

minority/migrant settler context concerns ‘who’ they are as Pacific people living in New Zealand which is increasingly varied and cannot be assumed based on island nationality alone, and their genealogical connection to their homelands. A number of factors are involved. These include whether or not people are island-born or New Zealand-born and thus the amount of exposure they have had to their culture in its indigenous context, and the nature and extent of inter-cultural connection and assimilation that occurs when living in New Zealand. The latter include, for example, the influences of schooling, involvement in sport or intermarriage (MacPherson, 2001, 2004).

Supporting wellbeing, which lags behind that of Pākehā New Zealanders but is generally better than that of Māori (Ministry of Social Development, 2008;

MacPherson, 2004), therefore involves understanding the varied personal cultural identities that Pacific people living in New Zealand construct (Mulitalo-Lauta, 2001). In this context strategies which help individuals retain cultural identity linked to their homelands and to their peoples, such as rituals and ceremonies which reinforce culturally-based practices, and working with people ‘through the heart’ (or spirituality, “the emotional and intellectual values of Pacific peoples” as defined by Mulitalo-Lauta (2001, p. 253), are considered important in achieving Pacific settlers wellbeing. Importantly, McPherson (2000) observes that many of the traditional structures and practices that influenced wellbeing in homelands are under pressure, or no longer have the same relevance, as roles and expectations and ‘ways of being’ of Pacific people are reshaped in New Zealand.

Mulitalo-Lauta (2001) describes ways in which values which underpin traditional practices may be recontextualised to support wellbeing in this context. A

framework for Pacific peoples’ wellbeing offered by her (2001, p. 249) in the context of social service provision includes consideration of the:

social structures, including the family, the church, clubs and groups to which a person belongs; the strategies a person uses to ensure his or her survival in New Zealand; the ceremonial activities or rituals in which a person is involved which reaffirm his or her existence in New Zealand; the system of protocols and values learned from elders, the church or from their community groups, and which guide the person’s cultural

development; [and] the sense of spirituality that maintains the person’s sense of growth and well-being.

It is important to remember that Pacific people came to New Zealand in the hope of a better quality of life (Meleisea & Schoeffel, 1998). In the context of the current study, the importance placed on education by Pacific families as a mechanism to achieve this is relevant (MacPherson, 2001).

Nelson and Prilleltensky’s framework for wellbeing

Nelson & Prilleltensky’s (2002, as cited in Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005, p. 57) framework for wellbeing, adapted to foreground its values base, is as follows. As the authors intended, and as relevant in this study, the framework should be interpreted as recognising that varying cultural perspectives and worldviews of different groups or sections of society are to be accommodated. For example self-determination for Māori – tino rangitiratanga – means the right to live as Māori in New Zealand (Durie, 2006a) or ‘Māori authority’ (Durie, 1998; Love, 2008).

Personal well-being

Self-determination – Where self-determination is valued,

opportunities are created in self and others to pursue chosen goals in life without excessive frustration. The need for mastery, control, self-efficacy, voice, choice, skills, growth and autonomy is met.

Caring and compassion – Where caring and compassion are valued, care and concern for the physical and emotional well-being of self and others is expressed. The need for love, attention, empathy, attachment, acceptance and positive regard is met.

Health – Where health is valued, the physical and emotional health of self and others is protected and in so doing the need for

emotional and physical well-being is met.

Relational well-being

Respect for diversity – Where diversity is valued, respect for, and appreciation of, diverse social identities and for people’s ability to define themselves is promoted. The need for identity, dignity, self-respect, self-esteem and acceptance is met.

Participation and collaboration – Where participation and collaboration are valued, fair processes whereby people can have meaningful input into decisions affecting their lives are promoted.

People’s need for participation, involvement and mutual responsibility is then met.

Collective well-being

Support for community structures – Where community structures are valued, vital community structures that facilitate the pursuit of personal and communal goals are promoted. The need for sense of community, cohesion and formal support is met.

Social justice and accountability – Where social justice and

accountability are valued, fair and equitable allocation of bargaining powers, obligations and resources for the oppressed are promoted.

The need for economic security, shelter, clothing, nutrition and access to vital health and social services is met.