Urie Bronfenbrenner, a Russian-born American child psychologist, established from the 1970s a complex system of propositions about children’s development with which he sought to influence social policy and the practice of childcare in the USA. He termed his original ideas ‘ecological’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; 1979); with further advancements these then became a ‘bio-ecological’ framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Bronfenbrenner and Evans, 2000).
Bronfenbrenner composed his model in order to challenge the nature of knowledge emerging from traditional scientific research studies carried out with and about children, describing his work as a ‘reaction to the restricted scope of most research then being conducted by development psychology’ (1994, pp37-38). In place of the two conventional research approaches – the first of which he termed a ‘rock’ to symbolize studies conducted in unnatural, scientific environments, the second a ‘soft place’, signaling excessive naturalistic observations (1977, p513) – Bronfenbrenner
developed his own, much more intricate model, addressing what he saw as the limitations of understandings which could be derived from those two contrasting traditions.
2.2.1 Influences
Bronfenbrenner drew extensively on a range of earlier theories of 20th century
developmental and behavioural psychology, especially those reflecting Russian traditions. He used the words of Leontiev (1964) to identify the contrast between perceptions in western and Soviet psychological research: ‘It seems to me that American researchers are constantly seeking to explain how the child came to be what he is; we in the USSR are striving to discover not how the child came to be what he is, but how he can become what he not yet is’ (in Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p40). Bronfenbrenner’s perspectives indeed incorporate a forward momentum, seeking to elucidate the complex ways in which children’s development and progression are constructed and may be enhanced.
These ideas drew in particular from the concepts of two psychologists: Kurt Lewin, a passionate follower of Gestalt psychology (Thomas, 1996), and the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. Two of Lewin’s notions are evident in Bronfenbrenner’s writings. The first is the idea that child development takes place in ‘life spaces’ or ‘psychological fields’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p23). These are real-life social contexts that are particularly influential in shaping a child’s growth, and the notion is evident in Bronfenbrenner’s central concern for the role of social environment in children’s development. The second is Lewin’s idea of the young developing person as a whole integrated organism, whose growth brings about re-arrangements in his or her social relations and interactions with others (Thomas, 1996). Bronfenbrenner extended this
concept to a more complex synergy of a wide range of influences – biological, environmental and interpersonal.
Bronfenbrenner gained even greater inspiration from his understanding of Vygotsky’s socio-cultural orientation and the interpretation of child rearing as a historically and culturally determined phenomenon (Vygotsky, 1993; Ageyev, 2003; Gindis, 2003). Vygotsky’s influence can be directly observed in many of Bronfenbrenner’s propositions, relating to the child as a biological entity, to the surroundings in which she or he grows up, and to the interactions which connect the young person with the social environment. Similarity can in particular be seen between Vygotsky’s strong emphasis on the social and interactive nature of learning and development (Sutton, 1988; Moore, 2000; Daniels, 2001; Smidt, 2011) and Bronfenbrenner’s extended interest in examining the contextual circumstances for child development (Thomas, 1996), ideas which led both theorists to recognition of the socially embedded nature of upbringing (Wong, 2001; Kozulin, 2003; Smidt, 2011). Consequently, both perceived development as the outcome of socially determined interpersonal relationships, termed by Vygotsky as ‘dialogues’ (Moore, 2000) and by Bronfenbrenner (1977; 1979) as ‘interactions’. Both believed the child to be an active agent in these interpersonal connections, leading to increased social competence.
While acknowledging the importance of Lewin and Vygotsky in his thinking, Bronfenbrenner developed a system which was more substantial in terms of recognizing the complex and intricate nature of influences governing children’s development. He explained these as ‘extending far beyond the immediate situation directly affecting the developing person’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p7). Furthermore, he proposed his intricate conceptualization not only as a model for child development itself, but also as an operational framework for research. As a result two interwoven strands are evident in his bio-ecological approach: firstly, a model that conceptualizes
child development; secondly, a substantive research framework for investigating that development. Both are examined here.
2.2.2 Model for child development
The primary concern in Bronfenbrenner’s evolving system of ideas was children and their development. He crafted his ideas on this process over time, placing increasing emphasis on the complexity of environmental and contextual influences. In early work he explicated its phenomenological nature (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) – the individual’s growing capacity to perceive, interpret, respond to and subsequently assimilate developmental stimuli from the environment. In his perspective the ways by which the child makes sense of the environment underpin the means by which she or he shows growth or decline in capacities. Later, he extended these ideas and argued for child development as a time-bound, progressive process during which the child draws from both personal and environmental resources to respond to the expanding social settings of which she or he is a part (Bronfenbrenner and Evans, 2000).
Bronfenbrenner’s conceptualization was not, therefore, about incremental stages or changes in capacity as in other developmental theories, nor about age-related levels or expectations for performance and achievement. Instead, acknowledging Vygotsky’s beliefs, he stressed the developing child’s increasing and changing social awareness and ability to interpret the perceived reality of social scenarios, either positively instigating and enhancing progression, or hindering and negating it. As Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued, the ecology of child development is ‘a theory of environmental interconnections and their impact on the forces directly affecting psychological growth’ (p8), forces always intertwined with particular social and physical environments, in his words, ‘development-in-context’ (p7).
2.2.3 Framework for research
As noted earlier, Bronfenbrenner regarded his conceptualization also as a research framework by which this development could be studied. Dismissing scientific enquiries which had uni-directional or deterministic outlooks, predominantly focused on the attributes of the developing child, he constructed instead an investigative framework which highlighted not simply the link between the child and her or his environment, but more significantly the nature of reciprocal interactions between the two.
This idea drew attention to the child’s interpersonal relationships with others in various social environments, such as immediate and extended family and childcare settings. It also involved consideration of the influence of social contexts more distanced from the child and with whom the child did not necessarily have personal contact at all, such as community, health and social care arrangements, local outlooks on child rearing and even national policies on early-childhood provision. For Bronfenbrenner (1995), understanding about children’s development could only be accomplished if features of these multiple-level settings were interrogated:
The ecology of human development is the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation, throughout the life span, between a growing human organism and the changing immediate environments in which it lives, as this process is affected by relations obtaining within and between these immediate settings, as well as the large social contexts, both formal and informal, in which the settings are embedded Bronfenbrenner (1977, p514).