This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
University of Colorado-Boulder
The person-environment relationship from a transactional point of view is
more than spatial. It is more than the person being situated in the environment
(''in the way ships are in bottles" Tibbetts and Easer, 1973). The person-environment relationship is a transactional one where person and environment are mutually defining and redefining.
Important to this transactional relationship is the influence of assumptions
and intentional factors on perception. Hastorf and Cantril's (1954) classic case
study entitled "They Saw a Game: A Case Study" illustrates this point. Tibbetts
and Esser (1973) give the following summary:
"The 'case Study' deals with a football game between two traditional rivals, Dartmouth and Princeton, and the extent to which school affiliation biased what a student perceived. As might be expected, there were no 'impartial observers'; students from the two schools literally saw different occurrances on the playing field. When films of the game were later shown, students from the two schools could not in fact even agree as to when there were infractions of the rules, ..." page 445
The authors summarize by quoting Hastorf and Cantril: ''The significance
assumed by different happenings for different people depend in large part on the
purpose people bring to the occasion and the assumptions they have of the
purpose and probable behavior of other people involved". The practical
application of this transactional view is embodied in the observer program at the
University of Colorado in Boulder .
The Observer Program
Two years ago the Ombudsman Office at the University of Colorado
created an observer program for the Boulder campus. The observer program idea
originated at the University of California-Berkeley many years ago during an era
when student protest was common. The program uses volunteers, trained in
neutral observation, to enter a crowd of protesters and make written observations
of ''critical incidents." A critical incident is defined as a situation where there is potential damage to person or property. The impetus for the observer program at
the University of Colorado came from the police department after several of the
key personnel from the department consulted with the campus police department
at the University of California Berkeley.
One of the unique values of the observer program is that it provides
protection for all groups involved in protest activities who "need to know." Such
groups might include: student protesters, community protesters, police officers,
media personnel, administrators, counterprotesters, and those that the protesters
may be directing their actions towards (campus recruiters, regents, administrators,
student political groups, etc.). Although police may photograph or videotape
incidents for use in prosecution, media may capture the flavor of the protest, and
administrators may observe an overall demonstration, the written observations
offer detailed up-close observation. These reports have come to represent a truly
neutral perspective of what may have happened between conflicting parties.
Role of Ombudsman Office
The Director of the Ombudsman Office coordinates the observer program.
Coordination involves selection and training of volunteer observers, negotiating
with administrators and police around the need for observers, contacting
observers to request their presence at an event, supervising observers during their
work, providing refreshments, briefing observers before an event, discussing with
police and other campus officials observer access to the vicinity of the event and
holding rooms in the case of arrests, providing appropriate identification for
observers so they may cross police lines and enter other secured environments,
receiving and responding to requests for observer reports, responding to media
inquiries. The Ombudsman Office staff does not serve as actual observers.
Role and Training of Observers
Observers are selected from staff on campus. Staff were chosen as
opposed to students and faculty because of the flexibility in their schedules which
students and faculty lack. Types of people from the staff ranks who have served
as observers include: assistant to the vice chancellor, assistant director of
admissions. director of academic media, bursar, director of the student health
center, director of risk management, tuition classification officer, personnel
specialist, recreation center coordinator, accountant. Observers are given release
time, similar to serving on a committee, from their routine work. They are often
called at the last minute (since many protests are unannounced.) They are
required to meet at a certain location, listen to a short briefing, and observe. Some
situations may be peaceful and therefore uneventful and others may require
several hours of intensive work. Observer reports are turned in to the Ombudsman
Office shortly after the event.
Observers are trained once or twice a year. Training is provided by the
Ombudsman Office with guest presenters from the media relations department and campus police department. Training topics include: overview of civil disobedience, police tactics, interacting with the press, neutral observation skills, report writing, and observer program mechanics.
Observer Program Policies
Observers are required to use only paper and pen when making
observations. Recording devices and cameras are forbidden due to safety reasons.
Special identification tags have been created by the campus police department for
observers' use during demonstrations. The coordinator of the observer program
works closely with the police department to ensure the safety of the observers.
Observers are allowed access to any place that protesters and police are unless it
is deemed unsafe by the police. Observers are for the most part silent. They do
not engage in discussion with either police or protesters except to properly
identify themselves and to answer questions about the observer program.
Access to Reports
To enhance the integrity of the observer program, requests for reports are
submitted, in writing, to the Director of the Ombudsman Office. The person
requesting the report(s) must demonstrate a "need to know" and specify the time
and location of the incident in question. For example, if a grievance has been
filed against a police officer for excess force and the incident occurred on
Monday afternoon at 3:00, near-the fountain outside x building, the request
should specify that all observer reports around this time and location be provided.
The definition of "need to know" is broad and can apply to students, staff, faculty,
police otficers, and community members. Reports are kept in a confidential file in
the Ombudsman Office.
Use of the Observer Program
While the observer program was initially created to serve potentially
volatile campus demonstrations (CIA recruiting on campus, divestment in South
Africa) the concept has creatively been used in other ways. Observers were asked
to walk lines during a recent registration disaster where students were waiting up
to 10-12 hours to drop and add classes. Observers recently watched a crowd of
3,000 which was listening to Jesse Jackson and other political speakers. The
program has gained the respect of the University community and will continue as
a group of well trained staff who can quickly provide a neutral perspective when
needed on campus.
References:
Hastorf, A. and Cantril, H. (1954). They say a game: A case study. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129-134.
Tibbetts, P. & Esser, A. (1973). Transactional structures in man-environment
relations. Man-Environment Systems, 3(6), 441-468.
Editor's note; Susan Hobson-Panico is the Ombudsman for the University of
Colorado at Boulder. She uses the ecological perspective in her work as
Ombudsman and has contributed to that perspective at numerous workshops and
conferences. The material presented here is an expansion of an earlier work
published in the Ombudsman Journal.
Vandalism to the campus environment is on the rise according to the
results of the Townsend State University's Center for the Prevention of Campus
Violence. Evidence of this increase is often quite noticeable. Windows are found
broken in campus buildings. Graffiti shows up on building surfaces, sidewalks,
and campus statuary. Campus beautification projects are spoiled by the vandals'
chain saw. The examples are numerous, but all fall within the definition of
vandalism given by Fisher, Bell and Baum (1984): "willful or malicious
destruction, injury, disfigurement, or disfacement of any public or private
property."
An ecological analysis of vandalism would ask the following questions:
What is the behavior of vandalism? What do we know about the interaction/transaction of person and environmental characteristics that would lead to such behavior? What are some of the environmental measures that might be helpful to prevent or control campus vandalism?
Types of Vandalism
Again, Fisher, Bell and Baum (1984) are helpful in describing in more
detail the types of vandalism. They suggest five different types of vandal
behavior: (1) acquisition vandalism (looting the trophy room of a fraternity house
or other types of petty theft), (2) tactical/ ideological vandalism (the destruction
of ROTC property as a protest against the military), (3) vindictive vandalism
(defacing the Student Financial Aid Office as a result of not obtaining aid), (4)
play vandalism (destruction of property in the residence hall due to a " in hall''
baseball activity), and (5) malicious vandalism (out of frustration and anger a
group of students destroy newly planted trees). There is some overlap among the
categories, but the scheme is a helpful categorization of vandalism.
Causes of Vandalism
What are the causes of vandalism? How do environments and people transact to produce the results of vandalism? Fisher, Bell, and Baum (1984) discuss such possible factors as the design of the physical environment (when the design of the setting allows the inhabitants little control, vandalism becomes more common), poor maintenance (an environment with poor aesthetics or improper maintenance suggests that no one cares about the environment), low perceived control (environments that restrict student control may in fact elicit vandalism as a method of reestablishing control). Fisher and Baron (1982) suggest the concept of equity/inequity to explain the possible motivation for vandalism. The equity/inequity explanation suggests person and environment relationships that are equitable or fair are sought by individuals. Vandalism is seen as a mechanism for restoring equity in a relationship. If a student or campus faculty member feels they have been mistreated by the institution (inequity in the relationship), then equity may be restored by doing damage to the institution or its property. Fisher and Baron (1982) suggest the following types of inequity: (1) ordinary economic exchange (student rips off bulletin board in residence hall after hearing the news of a room and board increase), (2) discriminatory practices and inequitable rules and regulations (the locker room in the gym is vandalised by a group who felt that the intramural rules regarding their play were unfair), and (3) aspects of the physical environment in and of itself (someone damages the coke machine because it refused to give the proper change or bolted residence hall furniture is damaged because of its inflexibility). Will vandalism follow all perceived inequities between persons and the campus environment?
Fisher and Baron (1984) suggest that inequity will result in vandalism
only when the person feels unfairly treated and does not feel there are other
avenues to address the issue of inequity. A responsive administrative system
becomes important in developing measures to prevent and reduce vandalism.
Other preventive measures are also possible.
Prevention of Vandalism
The development of "vandal-proof" environments has not proven to be a
good strategy. Most often the creativity of the vandal is more inspired than the
designer. However, Pitt and Zube (1987) classify several strategies for prevention:
(1) improved design and maintenance of the physical environment, (2) improved
and expanded information and educational programs, (3) controlled access to
frequently vandalized areas, (4) removal of highly vandalized objects, (5)
improved detection and enforcement of regulations, and (6) stronger public
involvement in prevention. Given this analysis of the of vandalism and the
possible person-environment relationship that might lead to vandalism, a strong
campus preventive program would include not only attention to the physical
environment, but also to the policy environment and most importantly to the
concept of participation by students in the design of both facilities and policies.
Editor's note: Please note the references are listed under Resource References: Vandalism on Campus (backpage of newsletter).
"Is it possible then for men to think clearly and feel positively about our human dependence upon the ecosystems of the biosphere (i.e., upon nature) if they have not resolved in a satisfactory way their basic psyco-sexual conflict about feelings of dependence and weakness. I would suggest not." Page 38
Gray, Elizabeth (1981). Green paradise lost. Wellesley, MA: Roundtable Press.
Fisher, J., Bell, P., & Baum, A. (1984). Environmental Psychology. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Fisher, J., & Baron, R. (1982). An equity-based model of vandalism. Population
and Environment, 5(3), 182-200.
Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64, 491-505.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. Crime prevention through urban design.
New York: McMillan .
Pablant, P., & Baxter, J. (1975). Environmental correlates of school vandalism. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, July, 270-279.
Pitt, D., & Zube, E. (1987). Management of natural environments. In D. Stokols
& I. Irwin (Eds.). Handbook of environmental psychology (pp 1009-1042). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Richards, P. (1979). Middle class vandalism and the age status conflict. Social
Problems, 26, 482- 497.
Sommer, R. (1972). Design awareness. Corte Madera, CA: Rinehart.
Vandalism and outdoor recreation. (General Technical Report No. PSW-17. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.