2.1 Ecological-Systems Theory: Definition and Foci

Bronfenbrenner (1979; 1997) expanded systems theory into an ecological-systems theoretical approach, which has marked influence on social work’s conceptualization of social issues (Gitterman and Germain, 2008; Hutchinson and Otedal, 2014; Siporin, 1080; Teater, 2014). The over-riding emphasis of ecological-systems theory is on development-in-context, and person-in-context.

A system is a “complex of interacting components together with the relationships among them that permit the identification of a boundary maintaining entity or process” (Laszlo and Krippner, 1997, p. 57).  A system may be conceptualized an organized whole made up of inter-related and inter-dependent parts, in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Given the above definition with its emphasis on “organized whole” a group of unrelated people who happen to be travelling together on a train or bus do not constitute a system in that they are neither inter-related or inter-dependent. As passengers they rely on an organized transportation system or network. The common denominator of being random passengers together does not qualify as a system.  

The family is a good example of a system at the micro level, which has sub-systems (smaller units within the system) e.g. the parental sub-system and the sibling sub-system that are inter-related and inter-dependent, with inter-relationships within these sub-systems.  Any change in one part of the system or sub-system will influence other parts of the system. Systems are characterized by purposeful and goal-directed activities, but these – as related to socio-cultural systems – can be very complex and conflicting, and change over time.

The “more than the sum of its parts” refers to the fact systems are characterized by patterned relationships amongst the various elements. E.g. the human body, as a system, is not a haphazard collection of its different organs – each of the organs function in coordinated ways to attain the purpose of maintaining health.  The same applies to socio-cultural systems.  From the micro level of the family to the macro level of large, complex organizations, each element in the system depends on the other, calling for complementarity of roles and open and clear communication.  The “more than the sum of its parts” supports that while two socio-cultural systems, such as the family may be identical in structure, e.g. mother, father and two children of the same gender, the qualitative aspects of the family; its culture, modes of communication and expression and so on may differ markedly.

The larger systems that surround a system are called supra-systems.  For example, the family is surrounded by religious, educational, economic, labour market, legal and cultural systems at different levels.

All of these influence the individual and family in profound ways. The relationship is a circular and dialectical one as the individual and family also influence and shape the systems around it.  Relationships are bi-directional.

 There are several foci to ecological-systems theory:

• Individuals interaction with and their influence on the environment, including the family environment and beyond.
• The influence of broader systems on individual and family development and functioning.
• The influence of the family, as a system, on the individual (a complex biopsychosocial, spiritual being) across the developmental life-span.
• The influence that individuals/families/groups have on each other within and across systems

Systems theory provides useful concepts to lend order to our relatively untidy and very complex world. It models “complex interpersonal, interpersonal, inter-group, and human/nature interactions without reducing perceptual phenomena to the level of individual stimuli” (Laszlo and Krippner, 1998, p. 53) supporting the notion that one’s perceptions, experiences and thinking are linked with structural conditions.