Asb MODULE 5

Nested or Networked? Future Directions for Ecological Systems Theory Jennifer Watling Neal and Zachary P. Neal, Michigan State University

Abstract

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (EST) is among the most widely adopted theoretical frameworks for studying individuals in ecological contexts. In its traditional formulation, different levels of ecological systems are viewed as nested within one another. In this article, we use Simmel’s notion of intersecting social circles and Bronfenbrenner’s earlier writing on social networks to develop an alternative ‘net- worked’ model that instead views ecological systems as an overlapping arrangement of structures, each directly or indirectly connected to the others by the direct and indirect social interactions of their participants. We redefine each of the systems discussed by EST—micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono—based on patterns of social interaction, and then illustrate how this alternative model might be applied in the classic context of the developing child. We conclude by discussing future directions for how the networked model of EST can be applied as a conceptual framework, arguing that this approach offers developmental researchers with a more precise and flexible way to think about ecological contexts. We also offer some initial suggestions for moving a networked EST model from theory to method.

Keywords: ecological systems theory; social networks; context; Bronfenbrenner

Introduction

Originally proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979), ecological systems theory (EST) has been widely adopted by developmental psychologists interested in understanding individuals in context. Indeed, Google Scholar reveals that The Ecology of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which first outlined EST, has been cited nearly 15 000 times as of September 2012. Conceptually, EST has been used to motivate a focus on setting-level influences, guiding the development of contextual models to explain a range of phenomena including urban adolescent psychological and academic outcomes (e.g., Seidman, 1991), developmental risk and protective factors for substance use (e.g., Szapocznik & Coatsworth, 1999), youth activity engagement (e.g., Rose-Krasnor, 2009), and family influences on gender development (e.g., McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). Empirically, developmental studies have used

Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer Watling Neal, Department of Psychology, 316 W. Physics Road., 127A Psychology Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Email: jneal@msu.edu

Social Development Vol 22 No. 4 722–737 November 2013 doi: 10.1111/sode.12018

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

EST to identify contextual predictors or points of intervention that lie beyond the individual. For instance, studies of children and youth have often examined aspects of the peer, family, classroom/school, and neighborhood microsystems (e.g., Chipuer, 2001; Criss, Shaw, Moilanen, Hitchings, & Ingoldsby, 2009; Gest & Rodkin, 2011; Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003; Seidman et al., 1995) or mesosystemic interactions between these microsystems (e.g., Durlak et al., 2007; Serpell & Mashburn, 2012). However, in general, empirical exploration of exosystems and macrosystems in devel- opmental studies applying an EST framework remains less frequent.

Although EST is widely recognized for underscoring the importance of interdepend- ent and multilevel systems on individual development, the precise relationships of systems to one another remain elusive. Bronfenbrenner (1979) originally described ecological systems at different levels as nested within one another, giving rise to EST’s classic graphic portrayal as a set of concentric circles. However, in this article, we argue that conceptualizing ecological systems as nested obscures the relationships between them. Instead, we argue that ecological systems should be conceptualized as networked, where each system is defined in terms of the social relationships surround- ing a focal individual, and where systems at different levels relate to one another in an overlapping but non-nested way. Defining ecological systems in network terms not only provides greater theoretical clarity but also yields a form of EST that more closely matches Bronfenbrenner’s (1945) early recognition of the role of social networks in shaping development.

To build this argument, we begin by reviewing the traditional conceptualization of ecological systems as nested and highlight recent modifications to the theory. Then, drawing on Simmel’s (1955 [1922]) notion of intersecting social circles, we discuss how ecological systems are better conceptualized as networked rather than nested. We illustrate the networked model of EST using the hypothetical example of a developing child. Finally, we discuss implications of this new conceptualization of ecological systems theory for future research.

Ecological Systems as Nested: The Traditional Model

Bronfenbrenner first proposed EST in a series of seminal publications in the 1970s and 1980s. We focus on the theory and definitions provided in The Ecology of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which are largely consistent with his earlier and later writing (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1986a, 1986b), and which are summarized in Table 1. Bronfenbrenner (1979) described the topology of the ecological environment as ‘a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next’, which must be examined as an interdependent whole to fully understand the forces surrounding a developing individual (p. 22). This approach represented a sharp departure from more traditional approaches to developmental psychology of the day, which he derided as ‘the science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time’ (p. 19). His initial articulation of EST identified four such structures, or systems—the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem—that are nested around a focal individual like a set of concentric circles, or as Bronfenbrenner suggested, a set of Russian dolls (i.e., a matryoshka doll). Thus, nearly all graphical depictions of EST rely on some variation of the concentric circles model shown in Figure 1.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) viewed each system as arising from a setting, which he defined as ‘a place where people can readily engage in face-to-face interaction’

Nested or Networked? 723

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social Development, 22, 4, 2013

 

 

T ab

le 1.

N es

te d

an d

N et

w or

k ed

D efi

n it

io n

s of

E co

lo gi

ca l

S ys

te m

s C

on st

ru ct

s

C o n st

ru ct

N es

te d

(f ro

m B

ro n

fe n

b re

n n

er ,1

9 7

9 )

N et

w o

rk ed

E co

lo g ic

al E

nv ir

o n m

en t

‘. .

. a

n es

te d