Systematic Study of Child Development - Essay Example

What role do vulnerability and resilience play in the emergence of atypical child development? Systematic study of child development in the Euro-North American context began with psychological theories of pioneers in the field like Freud, Piaget, Vygotsky, Bowlby, Erikson, Watson, and, hundreds of researchers and practitioners applying, revising, and extending their theories over successive decades. There is general agreement on a sequence of largely invariant stages of age-related child development, although continuing research throws up new theories and strategies for optimal development of children in typical as well as atypical conditions and environments. Genetic and environmental factors interact with varying degrees of plasticity to effect developmental change. To very briefly outline the stages, or milestones of a child’s growth from birth onwards, research has identified, physical, motor, cognitive. socio-emotional, language acquisition variables, and their mechanisms, along with speed and pattern of development in terms of both population and individual differences. In spite of minor variations due to cultural and environmental factors, there is wide agreement as to what could be seen as ‘gifted’ or super-normal development and, at the other end, sub-normal or less than optimal development and functioning of children. Such differences are likely to persist into adulthood. However, the term atypical development is used more in the context of sub-normal rather than super-normal populations. More recent research into the lower end of the scale in child development, which is a minority, and considered atypical under normal conditions, has concentrated on what have been identified as vulnerability and resilience factors. The motivation has been to identify, intervene, and actively improve the chances of accomplishment of a satisfactory life trajectory for those children identified as being in danger of failing to reach societal norms of everyday life. To emphasise the global spread of child development research and application, studies from the USA, Australia and South Africa within the last decade are cited in this essay; (Masten & Gewirtz (2006), Mutimer, Reece, and Matthews (2007), Theron (2006). Vulnerability in children is described as risk factors, both individual and environmental hazards, which tend to result in negative developmental outcomes. Among individual characteristics are, intrauterine growth retardation, low birth weight, in-utero experience of maternal drug use, physical disability, and a variety of genetic defects. Among the immediate environmental hazards are family poverty, parental marital disruption, and inadequate living accommodation. A high-crime neighbourhood, inadequate schooling, and political violence in the wider society, are among environmental factors that can precipitate vulnerability. Vulnerability may be defined as an ‘individual’s predisposition to develop varied forms of psychopathology or behavioural ineffectiveness’, and as ‘susceptibility to negative developmental outcomes that can occur under high-risk conditions’ (Zimmerman & Arunkumar 1994). All children exposed to vulnerability conditions do not necessarily develop atypically. Some children are found to be resilient and do not exhibit negative outcomes. Why this is so, leads one to examine factors, individual or environmental, in ways identified as resilience, so that positive interventions could be made to minimise the effects of vulnerability. One of the earliest to make the significant discovery that exposure to risk and adversity did not necessarily result in negative outcomes was Rutter (1987). For example, even if half the children raised by a teenage mother may become teenage mothers themselves with attendant problems, the rest grow up to be relatively well-adjusted. How these variations in life trajectories are to be explained is briefly addressed below. Researchers have sought to find answers by conceptualising resilience. Resilience is posited as a construct which refers to ‘positive adaptation or development manifested in the context of adverse experiences’ (Masten & Gewirtz, 2006). Resilience is ‘a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity and ‘connotes the maintenance of positive adaptation by individuals despite experiences of developmental adversity’ ( Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). Initially analyses of risk factors were conceptualised as single, static events, while later investigators saw it as a process ‘for example, the total number of risk factors a child was exposed to, or the length of time of risk exposure, (as) more important than a single severe exposure’ (Engle, Castle & Menon undated ). This has extended to researchers trying to understand the underlying protective mechanisms. Individual characteristics such as locus of control, high intelligence and ego strength have been identified as protective functions for children brought up in risky environments. (Luthar 1999). In a South African intervention programme to promote resilience among children with specific learning difficulties Theron (2006) found it was ‘possible to foster resilience ... by building personal protective factors in them’. Nine personal protective factors were identified. In varying degree, these have to be’ harnessed’ to compensate for vulnerability factors. Briefly, the nine factors listed are: Moderately positive self concept Positive attitude Positive future orientation Assertiveness Enthusiasm Drive and curiosity Good interpersonal relationships Internal locus of control Moderate anxiety From the environmental angle, it is the support provided by at least one person whether within the extended family, school or the community, which moderates the risk factors. Werner and Smith (1982) in a longitudinal study concluded that ‘children who grew up with poverty and families experiencing discord and instability, found that those who developed a close relationship with at least one caregiver who provided unrestricted positive attention’, ameliorated or diminished ‘the potential negative effects’ (cited in Engle, Castle & Menon, undated). They reiterate the importance of ‘at least one stable and supportive relationship’, and, additionally, a belief in a higher purpose’. Engle, Castle and Menon explored the various ‘stages in the definition and analysis of risk in their overview of vulnerability and resilience research and interventions in the USA. They identify Stage 1 as Defining the risk factor, Stage 2 as Analysis of the risk factor, Stage 3 as Recognition of resilience, and Stage 4 as Research and Planning for interventions and recovery. While they find many examples of work involving the first two stages, they find rarer instances of research and interventions involving the last two factors. To summarise, there are three sets of characteristics identified as contributing to resilience, which are: 1) innate or developed factors in children themselves, 2) having at least one family member or caregiver close to the child, and 3) characteristics of the community and the wider social environment. Werner (1995) and Grotberg (1995) agree that protective factors and resilient outcomes transcend ethnic, social and geographic boundaries. However, practically all the researchers and practitioners in the field cited have identified various lacunae in the conceptualisation and exploration of the construct of resilience. ‘These critiques have generally focused on ambiguities in definitions and central terminology; heterogeneity in risks experience and competence achieved by individuals viewed as resilient; instability of the phenomenon of resilience; and concerns regarding the usefulness of resilience as a theoretical construct’ (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker 2000). Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker (2000) argue that there has been, 1. No ‘consensus about definitions, with substantial variations in operationalization and measurement of key constructs’ 2.Confusion in the conceptualisation of resilience both as a personal trait and a dynamic process, and 3. The use of terms such as risk/protective factors and vulnerability inconsistently. There is also concern about non-recognition of the ‘multidimensional nature of resilience’, although investigators are beginning to use terms such as ‘emotional resilience’ ‘educational resilience’ and ‘behavioural resilience’. They also question the ‘robustness of the evidence’ for resilience. There are problems of measurement when ‘it is difficult to determine whether, in a given study, all individuals viewed as resilient experienced comparable levels of adversity’. The subjective nature of perceptions of risk can be seen when individuals ‘may see themselves as being relatively well off’ although researchers ‘may define their life circumstances as being highly stressful’. They point to the instability of statistical findings involving small numbers, but also stress that ‘limits in absolute numbers, per se, do not provide a strong rationale for concluding that resilience is a construct unworthy of scientific study’.(op.cit.) There are also concerns that children assessed as resilient at one point in time may in the long term revert to non-adaptive behaviour. This has been termed ‘ontogenetic instability’ by researchers who tend to argue about the scientific value of the resilience concept (op. cit.). Much of the work in applying the concept of resilience has been empirical rather than theoretical in nature. However, as previously seen, resilience research based on the recognition of the three broad levels of applicability, at the individual level (e.g. traits such as intelligence or social skilfulness), at the familial level, (e.g. parental warmth or maltreatment), and at the community level (e.g. neighbourhoods, school, and clubs) serve as frameworks for much continuing useful research. Ecological and transactional models and structural-organisational models involving the wider arena of culture and context also inform ongoing research into resilience. This is where cross-disciplinary research using insights from other disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and cultural psychology is of value. They can elucidate processes that are context-specific, especially those unique to subcultural groups (Luthar 1999). There is also the recognition that ‘a neurobiology of resilience is beginning to emerge’ (Masten & Gewritz, 2006), which studies genetic factors interacting with environmental stress with consequences for the plasticity of brain development. There are still those who question whether the concept of resilience adds anything to the extensive work on child development that uses terms such as ‘positive adjustment’ for a similar process. Luthar (1996) has argued that resilience provides a ‘framework for thinking about development that differs from classical theories and that it has ‘considerable value ... as a distinct construct’, citing many illustrative studies that ‘indicated varying antecedents of resilience as compared with positive adjustment in general’. As instances where a growing body of evidence points to the usefulness of resilience as a significant factor Luthar (1999) cites ‘Baumrind’s typology of parenting’ based on the middle class as not applicable to the poor. Whereas democratic and non-authoritarian parental behaviour may be optimal in middle class families, in the inner city, what works are often ‘high strictness and monitoring of children’. Resilience research can enrich the understanding of normal development by highlighting how the risk factors function. Scholars have explicated ways in which studies of diverse atypical trajectories have led to expanded theories of “normal” human development. In an Australian study of child resilience the Resilience Classification Framework (RCF) is acknowledged as a ‘statistically sound method for resilience decision making’ (Mutimer, Reece & Matthews, 2007). The RCF enables the statistical identification of four sub groups. They are: Resilient (high stress – good adaptation); Good expected (low stress – good adaptation); Poor expected (high stress – poor adaptation); and Vulnerable (low stress – poor adaptation). Their reported study revealed a 7.96% of (N= 16) children could be classified as resilient. The authors caution that these children were regarded as resilient in comparison with their sample peers, and this may not generalise to another sample. Not all parents in the original sample responded to the questionnaires and the sample was thus attenuated. As no independent measures, other than responses to the questionnaire were available they warn that the findings may be of limited external validity. Conclusion: Resilience research is an established and burgeoning field, especially as an explanatory construct in the field of atypical child development. As seen above, there are practical and conceptual limitations to the capacity to generalise from the research findings so far available. However, the opportunities for further development and application of the concept to not only child development but for the extended areas of life-span development and cross-cultural and cross-generational studies have not been exhausted. *** References Engle, P.L., Castle, S., & Menon, P., (undated) Child Development: Vulnerability and Resilience http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/newcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=psycd.fac Retrieved 17/12/2009. Grotberg, E. (1995) A guide to promoting resilience in children strengthening the human spirit, Hague: the Bernard Van Leer Foundation. Luthar, S.S., (1996) Resilience: A construct of value? Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of American Psychological Association, Toronto, August 1996. Luthar, S.S., (1999) Poverty and Children’s Adjustment, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Luthar, S.S., Cicchetti, D., Becker, B. (2000); The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work Child Development. 71(3) 543-562. http://www.ncbi.nlm.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885202/ Retrieved 20/12/2009 Masten, A.S. & Gewirtz A.H. (2006) Resilience in Development: The Importance of Early Childhood; Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development Mutimer A., Reece, J., & Mathews, J., (2007) Child Resilience: Relationships between Stress, Adaptation and Family Functioning, Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology: child Resilience, 3(1): 16-25 http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Masten-GewirtzANGxp.pdf Retrieved 17/12/2009 Rutter, M. (1987) Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms Am J. Orthopsych. 61 6-12. Theron, L. (2006) Critique of an intervention programme to promote resilience among learners with specific learning difficulties, South African Journal of Education 26 (2) 199 -214. Werner, E.E., (1995) Resilience in development, Current directions in Psychological Science 4 81 – 85. Zimmerman, M.A. & Arunkumar, R. (1994) Resiliency research: Implications for schools and policy, Social Policy Research 8 (4) 1-17 Read More