The Ecological Theoretical Approach

 

The ecological approach that has emerged from the early works of Germain (1973) and others (Barker, 1973; Grinnell, 1973; Hartman, 1976) offers a rich theoretical base which practitioners can translate into effective social work practice. Presently, the ecological approach provides strategies that allow the social worker to move from a micro level of intervention to a macro level of social treatment. The ecological perspective not only helps the social worker impact a client system through policy and planning activities but also through psychotherapy and other micro level approaches. Thus, direct and indirect practice strategies for intervention can be combined into a congruent practice orientation when working with a client system through the ecological approach.

The present thinking on the ecological approach suggests that the primary premise explaining human problems is derived from the complex interplay of psychological, social, economic, political and physical forces. Such a framework accords due recognition to the transactional relationship between environmental conditions and the human condition. This perspective allows the practitioner to effectively treat problems and needs of various systemic levels including the individual, family, the small group, and the larger community. In essence, the practitioner can easily shift from a clinical role to a policy and planning role within the board framework of the ecological approach.

What this research provides for social work practice is a novel way for conceptualizing the problems of clients. It suggests that the client's behavior is not only shaped by the environment, an idea long accepted in social work practice, but also that behavioral change in the client provides for different inputs from the environment. In a certain sense, the client appears to play a role in the shaping of the environment. Through the ecological perspective, the behavioral setting can be viewed as the basic unit of analysis for social work practice. The behavioral setting of the client should be viewed in terms other than the simple behavioral approaches found in traditional psychology. In other words, the behavioral setting is more than the behaviorist's conceptualization of behavior as a stimulus-response relationship, but rather is an inextricably interwoven relationship of physical setting, time, people, and individual behavior (Plas, 1981). The conglomeration of behavorial settings of a given client forms the client's ecosystem.

A client functions in more than one ecology. The client's ecosystem is the interrelationships and conglomeration of these ecologies. For example, a client's ecosystem consists of the self, family, the neighborhood, and the entire community. Obviously, as stressed earlier, conceptualizing the client's relationship to the environment is not a new idea in the profession of social work. What is powerful, however, about the concept of ecosystem is that the client's social functioning is clearly interrelated with the environment, and the client is an inextricable part of the ecological system (Hobbs, 1980). Consequently, the client's ecosystem is composed of numerous overlapping systems including the family, the workplace, and the community, as well as other critical subsystems unique to each client.

The traditional methods of social work intervention such as casework and groupwork largely view the presenting problem of a client as individual pathology. That is, the client is viewed as deviant, behaviorally troubled, or disturbed. The ecological perspective through the concept of transaction suggests that problems of clients are not a result of individual pathology, but rather a product of a malfunctioning ecosystem. The ecological perspective suggests that emotional disturbances, for example, are disturbances resulting from a pattern of maladaptive transactions between the organism and the environment through which environmental activity shapes the person and the person's social functioning influences the environment.

Advantages

The social ecological perspective is useful for understanding relationships between children or young people, and for understanding the different systems listed above, including friendship networks, families, community organisations and services, cultures, national policies, and even globalisation. According to Stevenson (1998, p. 19), ‘though it [social ecological perspective] is theoretical, it is very practical, it provides us with a kind of map to guide us through very confusing terrain’.

The social ecological perspective may assist practitioners when engaging with children and parents, because it reflects their realities, world views and explanations of their difficulties (Gill and Jack, 2007). It is a useful approach to support work with children, young people and families because it can act as a framework within which different and sometimes competing theories can be brought together (Seden, 2006). It is possible to look at practice problems from different perspectives and consider the impact of family, community, culture and societal processes both in causing problems and finding solutions (for example, resilience building). In particular, it reminds social workers about the diversity and uniqueness of children and service users and the importance of keeping them at the heart of their work.

Limitations

Although Bronfenbrenner’s model is very useful, models are only representations of the real world and should always be considered alongside other knowledge and experiences. The social ecological perspective is indeed helpful for showing interrelationships. It is, however, not so good at showing the weighting between the different elements. For example, many children who grow up in poverty may still achieve positive outcomes – the effects of poverty may be offset by other factors (for example, quality of parenting). The perspective often appears to overlook the day-to-day reality of practitioners. They might show the availability of support to a child from a social worker, yet the conditions under which the social worker is working (a large case load, conflicting priorities, personal development needs, etc.) are not necessarily visible within the model. Social workers are also ‘nested’ within their own social ecologies, and their practice is related to the different levels.

Although the ecological perspective has proposed a framework within which the development of children’s lives can be viewed, it does not necessarily define what is good or bad for children. Social ecological models are often a snapshot and do not easily represent changes across time.