Bronfenbrenner's theory 1 Running head: BRONFENBRENNER'S THEORY Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development (original) (raw)

Bronfenbrenner Toward an experimental ecology of human development 1977

A broader approach to research in huj man development is proposed that focuses on the pro-\ gressive accommodation, throughout the life span, between the growing human organism and the changing environments in which it actually lives and grows. \ The latter include not only the immediate settings containing the developing person but also the larger social contexts, both formal and informal, in which these settings are embedded. In terms of method, the approach emphasizes the use of rigorousj^d^igned exp_erjments, both naturalistic and contrived, beginning in the early stages of the research process. The changing relation between person and environment is conceived in systems terms. These systems properties are set forth in a series of propositions, each illustrated by concrete research examples.

Bioecological Theory of Human Development

Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 2014

The bioecological theory of human development is a comprehensive theoretical and methodological model for the study of human development. Extending on earlier ecological models of development, the bioecological theory expounds on the biopsychological features of the “developing person” and on the capability for proximal processes to differentiate and actualize biological potential. The bioecological theory of human development has progressed through periodic revisions since its first comprehensive formulation in 1970 by one of the twentieth century’s most prominent developmental psychology theoretician, and Head Start co-founder, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005). Bronfenbrenner envisioned that his bioecological theory be relevant for practice, science, and policy, by studying human development in real or realistic contexts. This entry in the Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research provides details of the different systems of ecology and its impact on the developing person.

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model and Me

Traditional models of human behavior began with an exploration of subjective experiences, manifest personality characteristics and eventually pathological classification along a continuum of dysfunction and disorder . Early models tackling the robustness of human behavior, such as Piaget's cognitive perspective, failed to consider the context in which a behavior developed, even while accounting for the roles of both nature and nurture . Erikson's stages of development did integrate social and cultural factors, but he still did not

The Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory of human development

2008

This article is focused on Urie Bronfenbrenner ́s ecological theory of human development and socialization. In Finland this theory has been applied in psychology and pedagogy in relation to the phenomena of development and education. In the field of early childhood education the Bronfenbrenner ecological theory has been in recurrent use for well over twenty years. In this article the light is cast specifically on the applicability of the Bronfenbrenner theory to different areas of student research activity, its degree of social orientation, its main features and the ways of its modeling. The article is a theoretical one, based on written works and the author ́s personal experience gained while tutoring student research. Societies and child development Urie Bronfenbrenner was an American psychologist. He was the son of Doctor Alexander Bronfenbrenner and Eugenia Kamenetskaja, born on April 29, 1917 in Moscow, Russia. He was 6 years old, when coming to the United States. He died on Se...

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory Revision: Moving Culture From the Macro Into the Micro

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2017

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development is one of the most widely known theoretical frameworks in human development. In spite of its popularity, the notion of culture within the macrosystem, as a separate entity of everyday practices and therefore microsystems, is problematic. Using the theoretical and empirical work of Rogoff and Weisner, and influenced as they are by Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective, we reconceptualize Bronfenbrenner’s model by placing culture as an intricate part of proximal development processes. In our model, culture has the role of defining and organizing microsystems and therefore becomes part of the central processes of human development. Culture is an ever changing system composed of the daily practices of social communities (families, schools, neighborhoods, etc.) and the interpretation of those practices through language and communication. It also comprises tools and signs that are part of the historical legacy of those communities, and thus diversity is an integral part of the child’s microsystems, leading to culturally defined acceptable developmental processes and outcomes.

Rethinking Developmental Science

Research in Human Development, 2014

The articles in this issue are all based on the invited addresses given by the authors at the 2013 biennial meeting of the Society for the Study of Human Development. All of the authors address the unfolding paradigm shift in developmental sciences, from reductionism to relational developmental system theories. This theoretical stance involves the recognition of Individual ↔ context transactions, with multiple co-acting partners existing in dynamic relationships across the lifespan and life course. The articles address not only theoretical issues, but also methodological advances and their applications. While acknowledging the importance of new data collection and analytical techniques that permit the testing of more complex theoretical models, the articles demonstrate that well-designed questions from this theoretical perspective can also yield novel findings which are highly relevant to current real-world problems and social policy issues. This issue of Research in Human Development (RHD) is special for two reasons. First, it is composed of invited addresses from the 2013 biannual meeting of the Society for the Study of Human Development (SSHD), in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As such, I cannot really take credit for the compilation of this issue-that honor rightfully belongs to Willis (Bill) Overton, who organized the conference as President-Elect of the SSHD and invited this group of luminaries in the field of developmental science, and who is providing the commentary to this issue. Nonetheless, it has been a privilege to work with these authors, who have been highly instrumental in spearheading cutting edge issues in developmental science and who have contributed really terrific articles. Second, this is my last issue as Editor of RHD. I started in the summer of 2009, taking over from Erin Phelps, who ably shepherded this journal for several years. It has really been a tremendous amount of fun (and work). RHD is an unusual journal in several ways. It is one of the few journals which is lifespan, multidisciplinary, and embraces multi-method approaches. Further, we publish only special issues. Thus, we welcome proposals which have articles representing all stages of life, and from several disciplines, including psychological, sociology, philosophy, and biology. The topics of our issues in the past five years have ranged from epigenetics and evolutionary biology (Greenberg, 2014; Wanke & Spittle, 2011) and systems science (Urban, Osgood, & Mabry, 2011) to the life course effects of military service (Spiro & Settersten, 2012

Duration and experience: The temporality of development

Temporality: Culture in the Flow of Human Experience

It seems evident that development takes place over time. Yet, most theories and empirical research on development does not take the time dimension into account. This paper tries to analyze what temporality assumptions a developmental theory should make. This is done through studying a number of philosophers for whom temporality was important and who present different ideas on what time is and how it may be analyzed. Some of these ideas are then associated with modern scientific thinking, notably Gibsonian Ecological psychology and Dynamic Systems Approaches, which provide basic concepts for the temporality assumptions of a developmental theory for the life sciences. A particular tribute is paid to Kierkegaard, who — with his conceptions of Repetition, Augenblick (moment) and Exception — more than any other offers a key to the understanding of stability and change in the life course of an individual organism. The paper concludes with an extended and generalized understanding of Dynamic Systems Approaches, proposed as a theoretical basis for conceptualizing the temporality of development, akin to the scope outlined by Ken Richardson (2008).

Childhood and the evolution of the human life course

Human Nature, 2002

Childhood has been the focus of research and debate among anthropologists, developmental psychologists, demographers, economists, and other social scientists for fifty years (Konner 1991; Panter-Brick 1998). As a result, there are diverse research traditions and trajectories that have arisen with varying levels of intercommunication. Recent theoretical developments in human evolutionary ecology have shifted away from description of the normative characteristics of childhood across societies towards exploration of the evolutionary history of primate ontogeny and the fitness consequences of a life history that has childhood as a component (has identified four models based in life history theory that have recently been used to explain the slow growth and extended juvenility of primates in general and humans in particular. The brain growth model asserts that slow growth is a consequence of the amount of learning-based knowledge necessarily acquired by adulthood. Essentially, slow growth provides the time needed to fully program the brain with the information needed for adult competence (Bogin 1999). The pleiotropic model developed by Charnov and colleagues argues that among primates the benefits of continued growth to the