The Ecological Systems Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and its critics

According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), no child lives in an isolation, so it is

impossible to understand their development if we do not also consider the social contexts in which they exist. Bronfenbrenner originally presented the Ecological Systems Model (ibid) as a conceptual model of child development which provided insight into the relationships and influence of interaction between the individual and all environments which affect their lives (i.e. the child’s world or

ecosystem). His original Ecological System Model (henceforth referred to as ESM) described the child at the centre of four systems, demonstrating the influential facets of their life.

As shown in Figure 3.1, these complex layers of environments (or systems) are represented graphically through ever-increasing concentric circles nested within each other. Bronfenbrenner (1979, p.27) stated that the nested arrangement of systems is because “development never takes place in a vacuum; it is always embedded and expressed through behaviour in a particular environmental context”. Bronfenbrenner’s theory was also reflected in his research methods which were deemed controversial at the time because he preferred to conduct research in children’s own settings rather than the artificial, unfamiliar context of a laboratory (Maria Rosa & Tudge, 2013).

Figure 3.1: Ecological Systems Model

Adapted from Bronfenbrenner (1979, pp.3-8)

Bronfenbrenner emphasised the importance of the interconnection and

reciprocity between the different facets of a child’s life. Any change occurring in one system could create a ripple effect on others and ultimately on the development of the child at the centre. Bronfenbrenner explains this interdependency:

The ecology of human development involves the scientific study of 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 between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.21)

With the child located in the centre, Bronfenbrenner divided their environments into nested and interrelated systems: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. He posed that the closest and most influential environment is the microsystem as it contains the structures with which the child has direct, regular contact. The microsystem encompasses the relationships and

interactions a child has with their immediate settings and may include family, friends, school or nursery (Berk, 2000). Although Bronfenbrenner points out that

a child may have a “breakdown” in their systems, ergo their development, if key structures such as a parent, friend, school or neighbourhood community “are absent, or if they play a disruptive rather than supportive role” (1979, p.5). Relationships are bidirectional, both away from and toward the child. For

example, a child's parent may affect his behaviour and values, but the child can also affect the behaviour and values of the parent. Bronfenbrenner calls these ‘bidirectional influences’ which occur among all levels of system. Bidirectional influences at microsystem level are believed to be strongest and have the greatest impact on the child, however interactions and events in the outer systems still impact the inner layers. The interaction of structures within a system and between systems is key to this theory. Writing on the theme of development ecology, Shelton (2019) explains that the original model stressed that microsystems were settings or physical places, not people, however, later revisions emphasised that the quality of interactions or ‘proximal processes’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) between people in the systems was paramount to enhanced development. For example, a child may have a family home

microsystem but if there is abuse or neglect from a parent then the proximal processes are damaging.

The mesosystem provides connections between the child’s different

microsystems. For example, the interrelationships between the child's teacher and their parents could have a positive influence on children’s development. The mesosystem is the interaction between two or more microsystems

(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006).

Bronfenbrenner stated that the exosystem has an indirect influence on a child’s development because they may not actively participate or engage with

structures in this system. Examples of the exosystem include the neighbourhood, local government or a parent’s workplace, for example, events happening at the workplace can affect how a parent interacts with their child. It should be noted that structures are situated in some children’s exosystems while for others, who have regular engagement with those structures, they may be a microsystem. An example of this could be extended family, as some children live with their grandparents while others have very little or no contact with them.

The macrosystem consists of the wider social institutions, ideologies, and

cultural values, norms and beliefs. It is the overarching “societal blueprint for a particular culture or subculture” which lays the foundations of action and

behaviour for structures and people in all other systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, pp. 1645). The macrosystem can include societal, political, legal, economic systems in which families live and in the modern world global issues such as climate change and sustainability would be structures within this system. An aspect pertinent to this thesis, is that multiple macrosystems may exist in a person’s life at the same time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Depending on the context, cultural identity and shape of ‘acculturation’ (see section 2.3.2 ‘Bicultural Identity’), the individual may have overlapping macrosystems or a hybrid blend of two macrosystems. Shelton (2019, p.100) gives the example of an ethnic minority community having a different language, culture and religion from the wider society. Reflecting on Moskal and Sime’s (2016) study involving Polish children in Scotland and Schwartz et al.’s (2019) findings on Hispanic young people in Miami, depending on the context, the two macrosystems may blend to create a new hybrid macrosystem with elements of both.

Alternatively, as Berry (2017) noted, they may ‘assimilate’ and disregard one macrosystem, or they could keep both macrosystems operating as separate entities and shift between one (e.g. in their own home) and the other (e.g. at school) (Shelton, 2019). Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that an individual’s development is enhanced by having the opportunity to experience multiple macrosystems as it allows a person to encounter different beliefs, values, and ways of being or thinking. Furthermore, it allows them to enhance and build their overall set of resource characteristics. Shelton (2019) in his reflections of developmental ecology, writes:

If multiple macrosystems are present […] development is facilitated when the person has opportunities to experience and become familiar with all of them, not constrained to just one or hostile to the others. [This] encourages the construction of the most valid and differentiated understanding of the multiple cultures represented and the practice of skills that enable the person to relate effectively with all of them. (p.101)

The ESM allows for examination of how patterns of interactions within the systems influence each other and affect individuals’ developmental outcomes. Nevertheless, this early model of ecological development was critiqued for not emphasising the active role of the child in their own development (Ashiabi & O’Neal, 2015; Paquette & Ryan, 2001). Enger (2007) felt that the ESM did not take into account human resilience and questioned the need to understand why some individuals succeed despite adversity, tragedy or trauma whilst others do not. While Christensen (2016, p.27) states that adding resilience to the model is not enough and that agency, motivation and ‘entrepreneurship’ should be considered.

I would argue that critics instead could have focused on Bronfenbrenner’s maturer models of ecology which do take into account their concerns. In fact, Bronfenbrenner himself was discontent with the original ESM and called his own theory into question. He realised that advances in scientific research meant that the individual’s own biological and identifying characteristics had to be taken into consideration:

The realization of human genetic potentials and predispositions for competence, character, and psychopathology requires intervening mechanisms that connect the inner with the outer in a two-way process that occurs not instantly but over time. (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, p.316)

3.2.2 The Bioecological Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) and

subsequent adaptations

Bronfenbrenner refined and revised his theory to incorporate biological components and temporal concerns in what would come to be known as his Bioecological Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) (see Figure 3.2). The updated model viewed the child as an active agent in their own world and placed greater

emphasis on a child's own biology in their development. It accounted for the impact of factors such as health, age, race, personality traits, temperament, genetic inheritance, and gender, thereby quashing the nature versus nurture debate by combining the two forces (Ashiabi & O’Neal, 2015). It considered the child to play an active role in their own development.

Figure 3.2: Bioecological Model

Adapted from Bronfenbrenner (1994, pp.1643-47)

In addition to the original four systems, the revised model included a fifth system called the chronosystem which focused on the interaction between the various systems and structures over time (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). This system takes into account environmental events and transitions over the life- course of the person - past, present and future (Bronfenbrenner 1995b;

Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The chronosystem also considers the effect of socio-historical conditions on the development of the person, for example Black slavery or women’s rights. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998, p.1020) pose that “the life course of individuals is embedded in and shaped by the historical times and events they experience over their life-time”.

An observation by Bronfenbrenner himself, and something that I have previously found in scholarly articles examining child development from an ecological perspective, is that the model is frequently used to examine deficiencies and justify ‘where things went wrong’ regarding behavioural issues, substance misuse

or even child abuse, for example. He wrote:

It seems to me that American researchers are constantly seeking to

explain how the child came to be what he is; we in the U.S.S.R. are trying to discover not how the child came to be what he is, but how he can become what he not yet is. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.40)

He urged researchers and policy-makers to focus on influencing “what human beings may become tomorrow” rather than what has shaped their development in the past (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, p.117).

Tudge et al. (2009) explain that during the mid-1990s to the 2000s

Bronfenbrenner’s ESM evolved into the Bioecological Model but did not stay static as he collaborated with others and continued to refine his

conceptualisation of human development. An example of this is in the later Process-Person-Context-Time Model (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000) where heavy emphasis was placed on the quality and frequency of interaction (or ‘proximal processes’) between the child and others (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). As the present study did not seek to measure the quality and regularity of interactions, I chose not to apply this later model. The Bioecological Model was in a continual state of development up until Bronfenbrenner’s death in 2005. However, Bronfenbrenner and Morris referred to the model as “an evolving theoretical system” (2006, p.793) and understood that it would continue to develop over time. The following section considers advancements in digital technology and how this continues to allow Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical framework to evolve.