Ecological Systems Theory Approach to Child Welfare - Essay Example

? Section/# Ecological Systems Theory Approach: An Examination and Discussion with Relation to Child Welfare and Safety Introduction: One of the core realities that is been understood within recent years is the fact that the ecological theory of child development and welfare has a profound impact with regards to life experience, levels of association, development, and/or potential harm. As such, the ecological systems theory is a progressive theory that engages with an expanding level of systems as a means of helping the participant/stakeholder in understanding the increasing levels of impact that can be had with regards to each microsystem that exists within the macro system. As such, the ecological perspective can be broken down into the following five categories: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macro system, and the chronosystem. By understanding each of these different levels and the means through which they impact upon the development and contributing factors of well-being, this particular analysis will focus specifically with regards to the impact that ecological perspective theory has with regards to child development and the mechanisms through which the main factors that impinge upon child well-being can be safeguarded. Although it is of course impossible to promote an approach that factors in all imaginable compliments and contingencies, this particular analysis will focus specifically upon promoting child welfare and safeguarding interests at each and every level of the ecological systems theory approach (Neal & Neal, 2013). Even though it is understood by this author that one theory in and of itself cannot and should not be interpreted as the answer for safeguarding child well-being and interests, it is the further belief of this author that the ecological systems perspective is one of the single most effective theories that can be utilized to affect this end. Firstly, before delving into the five determinants of ecological systems theory, it is necessary to understand that development within the realm of human ecology is predicated upon the environmental systems in which an individual interacts. Within this particular framework, it is readily understood that the interaction and community that a particular system entails is the strongest determinant in helping to understand the way in which psychological responses, behavior, and development are ultimately formed. Naturally, such a focus upon society and the level and extent to which individual groups and communities impact upon the development of an individual is one of the primary sociological constraints which helps to identify the way in which groups, both large and small, impact upon the personality development of an individual; regardless of age (Andrade et al., 2012). Yet, rather than being a description and analysis of the manner in which ecological systems theory impacts upon an individual, the primary focus that will be analyzed and discussed will be with respect to the safeguard that can be implemented with respect to promoting the welfare and safety of a developing individual/child within such a constraint. As can of course be relevantly noted, the focus of the entire theory, as well as the focus of this brief piece, will be concentric upon discussing and analyzing the external dynamics that impact upon personal growth and behavior; as opposed to a more psychological interpretation of the internal and behavioral compliments of development. Furthermore, as a means of visualizing the discussion which will take place below, figure 1.0 helps to delineate the relationship and interrelationship that each of these systems share with respect to the individual. Figure 1.0 As can be denoted, the individual lies at the heart of the different systems that are connected to the ecological systems theoretical perspective. Most directly connected to the individual is the microsystem. As such, this microsystem involves such definitive groups as family, school, health services, church, neighborhood, and peers. As a means of maximizing child welfare, it is necessary for the individual who integrates with ecological systems theory to understand that the role and extent to which a parent/guardian can impact upon the overall well-being and safety of the child within these determinate areas is the most profound. Whereas it may seem somewhat controversial to promote the understanding that the child’s safety and well-being can be impacted with regards to discretion concerning the peers, neighborhood, health services, or school that they might attend, the fact of the matter is that these determinants are ultimately those which are within the closest level of impact for the stakeholder who is charged with maximizing the safety and welfare of the individual child. The trauma and hardship that can be presented within this microsystem is most often contingent upon the family. For instance, even though it has previously been understood that a two parent family is the most effective and healthy for an individual child to be raised in, recent scholarship and research has been noted the fact that stability and expectation are in fact the more powerful determinants (Gao, 2012). What is meant by this is with regards to the fact that even if a child is born within a single parent home, to parents of the same gender, or another nontraditional construct of familial representation, the most important determinant beyond meeting the needs of the child, representing a level of discipline, and promoting the welfare at each and every opportunity, is to ensure that the child experiences a level of certainty and expectation within this familial relationship. Such a level of expectation and familiarity has been measured by a litany of researchers and determined to be one of the most important constraints with regards to promoting early childhood development and effecting a healthy interrelationship between the microsystem and the other systems that will be discussed at some depth further on within this analysis. Outside of the impact that a particular parent can make, stakeholders within society, for instance educators within the school, should also be mindful of the fact that the school itself, as well as the peers that are interacted with within the school, form a further compounding level of the microsystem; equally able to impact upon the development and sociological/psychological health of the child in question. Within such an understanding, it is the express purpose of the school administrators to ensure the interaction between pupils is one that takes place in a healthy manner (Paat, 2013). For instance, even a cursory level of research indicates that the negative ramifications of bullying and the depression that it often causes could lead to a litany of different dangers within the child’s early life and development. As such, seeking to monitor this engagement and continually promoting norms of good behavior as well as safeguards to ensure that bullying does not take place, is an effective mechanism through which non-parental stakeholders within this microsystem can seek to promote the safeguards that exists for the students that are under their charge. Further, due to the fact that an individual church/synagogue/mom/place of worship has a direct level of impact with regards to defining in categorizing the world in which a young person interacts, this particular complement of the microsystem also has a profound level of responsibility with regards to categorizing and introducing the young person to the world around them (Cote, 2012). As has been denoted many times throughout the past, and throughout the recent past, zealotry and extremism within a litany of different sects has caused great damage to youth; integrating them with an understanding of the fact that the world is somehow simplistically divided into good versus evil and those that espouse a particular ideology can be defined in a specific and close minded manner. However, a further realization that must be had within this microsystem is the fact that religious communities need not necessarily espouse such a close minded interpretation of the world and could promote safeguards and benefits to children within society in much the same manner as has been defined with regards to educators and parents previously in this analysis. Mesosystem approach: Thus far the analysis has been contingent upon laying something of a lateral framework with regards to the way in which the different systems interact with one another. However, rather than determining the fact that no level of hierarchy exists within the determinants that have thus far been discussed, the mesosystem relates to the stakeholder that the correlation between hierarchies must exist within the microsystem; otherwise, the relationships that have thus far been defined threaten the health and development of the individual. For means of discussion, the reader can and should understand that the family forms the most basic and primary level of importance with regards to the development and safety of childhood development. Outside of this, the mesosystem relates to the relations that exist between the Microsystems; namely the way in which the child is encouraged to understand the dymamics between peer relations, school, church, and family life (Varey, 2013). The method through which safeguards can be instituted here is by the individual family seeking to promote an understanding of the fact that even though these other entities and interrelationships take place in close proximity to the individual, a breakdown or failure/rejection in one of these cannot and should not be detrimental to the health and development of the child. Ultimately, the analysis that is thus far been put forward is the best approach in helping the mesosystem to encourage the safety and development of the child. Without a level of hierarchy being delineated with regards to the way in which external inputs can impact upon the psychological and sociological development of the child, a level of confusion takes hold and the child is ultimately unable to integrate with an understanding of refuge and the means through which a delineation of importance can exist between all of these determinants. Exo-system Approach: Whereas the previous systems that have thus far been analyzed focus upon direct levels of impact with regards to the individual/child in question, the third system which is included within an ecological interpretation of theory is that of the exo-system. Within this particular system, linkages between social setting and the individuals reaction to other individuals immediate context is realized. In such effects, the relationship and impacts that can result within the exo-system are contingent upon the experiences and interactions of others and the mechanisms through which these are represented to the child. As such, with regards to the interactions and occurrences that take place within the family, parents or guardians should be especially cognizant of the fact that the representations of the struggles and trials that they are enduring at the current moment must be represented in a thoughtful manner. For instance, the manner through which a parent struggles with a spouse or loved one, the overall health of a marriage, or difficult and worrisome situations at work must be carefully considered with respect to the impact that they can have upon the child prior to being related them in much the same way that they might be related to a colleague or adult. Yet, by the same token, the level of engagement with the child and the manner through which they are led to understand key changes within their environment should not be to the extent that they are somehow unaware of the world around them. Instead, a happy median must be achieved through which the child is realistically aware of their surroundings yet at the same time is not troubled or concerned with the day to day worries that might impact upon the adults within their life (Bueno, 2012). Whereas a discussion of the exo-system has thus far been concentric upon the parents, the same level of understanding can be extended with regards to peers, school, church, or neighborhood. However, it must also be understood and appreciated that the impacts and level of concern that these secondary stakeholders will have with regards to the development and sociological integration of the child will necessarily be less than those that parent might exhibit. Although the information that has thus far been presented might make it appear as if there is a discernible disconnect between the mesosystem and the exosystem, the fact of the matter is that these two systems overlap to a great degree; so much so that determining which particular construct impacts upon which system to the greatest degree is ultimately a question of situation and approach (Kuo et al., 2012). As a function of such an understanding, the practitioner can and should come to the realization of the fact that the safety and protection of the child within these otherwise dissimilar approaches must be somewhat uniform. Whereas it is true that the mass media and such aspects as industry and/or social services bleed over from the exo-system to the mesosystem, the approach to maximizing a child’s welfare does not take a drastically different approach with respect to which particular systems approach is being employed. This is not to say that a systems approach towards maximizing child welfare and safety is somehow uniform between all of the systems approaches that have thus far been presented or will be discussed; rather, it merely denotes the fact that the similarlity of the constraints that define these systems naturally encourages the stakeholder to approach them in something of a unified manner. Macrosystem: Although safeguarding the child and promoting a healthy environment for them to mature within has been a primary concern of the analysis that is thus far been engaged, it must be understood that with each successive system that is been discussed, the impact that the individual or community can have upon the overall developmental health and sociological integration that the child is able to experience necessarily diminishes. As can be expected, the macro system is of course the final system that this analysis will engage. Accordingly, within it, the impacts of heritage, values, and morals that are in place throughout society must be engaged and understood. The key level of discord and confusion that oftentimes takes place with regards to a child’s development occurs with respect to the level of differential that exists between the local or familial groups that impact upon the child and the culture that exists within broader society. As might be expected, the child is perennially interested in seeking to define and understand the world they live in. With this in mind, lessening the static and confusion that exists with regards to the culture and society as compared to the immediate social interactions that exist for the child is a primary concern. Many have taken this to mean that it is the role and responsibility to force society to represent a culture and value that can broadly be attributed to the best interests of development for the child. However, as history has denoted, this overbearing technique is misguided and creates and unrealistic world in which censorship and control defines the way in which human activities, communication, values, norms, and mores are reflected. A more appropriate approach would be for the stakeholders to realize that in order to maximize the welfare and safety of the child, a clear differential between the expectations and realities of society and the expectations and realities of their individual social groups must be effected (Ximing & Xia, 2013). Children are ultimately exceptionally impressionable and it has been noted that regardless of the specific approach that a given stakeholder might take towards maximizing their welfare and safety, the culture and ideologies that are pervasive within society can have a profound impact upon influencing the behavior, socialization, and experience of the child (Kline et al., 2013). As such, a further goal that must be worked towards within this macro systems approach is to inherently impress upon young children that even though a pervasive culture exists and influences the way in which decisions are made and key points of understanding are presented, these macro systems cannot and should not always be held to an ideal standard for behavior or otherwise accepted out of hand. Instead, the macro system should be judged and analyzed in the same manner that any constraint is; seeking to define it based upon its merit, ethics, morality, and utility to the life of the individual participant in society (Karamysheva & Magnitskii, 2012). Naturally, many of these aspects cannot be thoroughly explained to the child; however, by actively showing that these constraints are not absolutes and should be discerned based upon the merits of the good or bad that they define, the utility of the safety for the child and the overall understanding for how such a participant should engage with these constraints can more appropriately be maximized and understood. Conclusion: From the information that has thus far been defined, it can readily be noted that the ecological systems approach is highly useful with regards to helping to maximize the ultimate benefit and safety of a child within the society. Yet, the ultimate fact of the matter is that even each of these approaches can be useful in helping to promote the needs and safety of a child stakeholder within society, the level of control that any individual, or group of individuals, can have with respect to controlling the uncontrollable aspects of external influences has a drastically diminished impact with regards to the applicability of each of these sub-systems approach. With that being understood, it can and should also be understood that even though a level of intervention can be impacted upon the child by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other individual that holds a level of respect and/or authority, the ultimate level to which they can engage and seek to promote the health and safety of the child is constrained by real-world factors that are unlikely to shift or become less dynamic as time goes by. Accordingly, rather than dismissing the systems theory that has thus far been discussed as not needful or useful in helping to promote the safety of children, a more relevant approach would be to understand that even though the ecological systems theoretical approach has a number of key shortcomings, it can be definitively noted that the strengths of this approach overshadow its shortcomings. Bibliography Andrade, G, Espinosa, A, Guzman, D, & Wills-Herrera, E 2012, 'A Multi-Paradigmatic Framework To Manage Adaptation Of Socio-Ecological Systems: Design Considerations For An Andean Eco-Region', Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 14, 1, pp. 15-30, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Bueno, N 2012, 'Assessing the resilience of small socio-ecological systems based on the dominant polarity of their feedback structure', System Dynamics Review (Wiley), 28, 4, pp. 351-360, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Cote, M, & Nightingale, A 2012, 'Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research', Progress In Human Geography, 36, 4, pp. 475-489, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. GAO, P 2012, 'An Exploration to Imbalance of Network Information Ecological System in an Economic Perspective', Canadian Social Science, 8, 5, pp. 35-38, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Karamysheva, T, & Magnitskii, N 2012, Ecological System Theory and Child Welfare', Sociology Quarterly, 48, 11, pp. 1477-1482, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Kline, C, Gard McGehee, N, Paterson, S, & Tsao, J 2013, 'Using Ecological Systems‘, Journal Of Travel Research, 52, 3, pp. 294-309, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Kuo, C, Lin, H, & Li, P 2012, 'Using Ecological Systems Theory in Community Health Assessment', Journal Of Nursing, 59, 2, pp. 99-105, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Neal, J, & Neal, Z 2013, 'Nested or Networked? Future Directions for Ecological Systems Theory', Social Development, 22, 4, pp. 722-737, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Paat, Y 2013, 'Working with Immigrant Children and Their Families: An Application of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory', Journal Of Human Behavior In The Social Environment, 23, 8, pp. 954-966, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Varey, W 2013, 'Apithological Inquiry: Learnings from an Ecological Aesthetic', Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 30, 5, pp. 596-606, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Ximing, S, & Xia, L 2013, 'Evaluation on Ecological Systems Theory', Sociological Engineering, 5, 2, pp. 202-206, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 December 2013. Read More