This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
Office of Public Relations
Wells College
In The Ecology of Human Development (1979), Urie Bronfenbrenner
presents a model of the ecological environment using ur interconnecting systems:
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. In order to describe the
model, I will quote directly from Bronfenbrenner's text:
"A microsystem is a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics..." (p. 22)
"A mesosystem comprises the interrelations among two or more settings in which the developing person actively participates (such as, for a child, the relations among home, school, and neighborhood peer group; for an adult, among family, work, and social life) ..." (p. 25)
"An ecosystem refers to one or more settings that do not involve the developing person as an active participant, but in which events occur that affect, or are affected by, what happens in the setting containing the person..." (p. 25)
"The macrosystem refers to consistencies, in the form and context of lower-order systems (micro-, meson and exo-) that exist, or could exist, at the level of the subculture or the culture as a whole, along with any belief systems or ideology underlying such consistencies..." (p.26)Although Bronfenbrenner is able to distinguish four distinct systems, the importance of interconnectedness is essential to his model. He says, "The ecological environment is conceived topologically as a nested arrangement of concentric structures, each contained within the next..." (p. 22) For the most positive development of the individual to occur, the various systems must interconnect; blockage between the various systems is detrimental to individual development.
In addition to the influences of the material environment, Bronfenbrenner
also acknowledges the influences of cultural and ideological factors. This is
succinctly stated in a hypothesis:
"The developmental potential of a setting is enhanced to the extent that there exist direct and indirect links to power settings through which participants in the original setting can influence allocations of resources and the making of decisions that are responsive to the needs of the developing person and efforts of those who act in his behalf." (p. 256)In this passage, I believe Bronfenbrenner opens a new field for investigation which would have important ramifications for understanding and assessing the campus environment.
Application to Information Systems
As the above passage suggests, the ecological environment can be viewed
as a system of interconnected systems through which information in various
forms (written, spoken, visual) pass. Some systems are privileged to information
that is visual pass. Some systems are privileged to information that is blocked
from other systems. The flow of signs throughout the macrosystem defines the
nature of the dominant culture and subcultures.
Using this concept, we can begin to conceptualize an environmental
model that takes into account the flow (and blockage) of signs, symbols, and
information. By combining this model with areas in linguistics which concern
themselves with the structure of sign systems, such as semiotics and structural
linguistics (Saussure, 1972), we can begin to formulate an ecosystem of the sign
and understand how the flow of signs is fostered or hindered on an individual
campus. Given the nature of contemporary, postindustrial society where
knowledge is a commoditiy, and especially in the knowledge industry that
American higher education has become, the management and understanding of
the ecology of the sign is essential for many professionals.
This short article can do little more than suggest that we examine the
ecology of signs as part of the environmental assessment process on our
individual campuses: however, there is one essential concept from
Bronfenbrenner's writings that can be applied readily to the complex ecosystem of
signs that we encounter each day. Among interconnecting ecological systems, it is
imperative that signs circulate freely throughout the environment. On a practical
level, that means that a healthy environment is one in which there is an
unhampered flow of information and mechanisms to process and respond to that
flow of information.
Importance of External Communication
In another sector, it is imperative that there must be a continuous flow of
information between the campus environment and the communities that surround
it (exosystem). Especially in a time when town/gown relations are presenting
challenges for many campuses, it is important for educators to assess the
information systems that are used when confronting these issues. Expanding
outward, there is also the importance of the linkage of campus signs systems with
society (macrosystem) and assessing the goals and mission of the campus as they
relate to current social contests.
References:
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development., Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Saussure, F. (1972). Course in general linguistics. In R. and F. George (eds.). The structuralists fromMarx to Levi-Strauss, (pp. 58-79). Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Co., Inc.
Editor's Note: Dr. Sloan is with the Public Relations Office of Wells College,
Aurora, NY 13026.
Too often the concept of campus ecology seems to restrict our thinking to
traditional students living on traditional cams puses. However, the ecology of the
University of Minnesota-Duluth is campus is being significantly changed by the
efforts of Robert Falk and his colleagues through the development of a unique
campus opportunity-The Darland Center. The Darland Center seeks to involve
retired faculty, administrators, and alumni in ongoing services to the university.
The Darland Center plans to promote involvement in four areas: (1)
Lifetime learning, (2) Research, (3) Leadership, and (4) Service.
Contact Robert Falk, The Darland Center, 3rd Floor Administration Building, University of Minnesota, Duluth, for additional information.
Ann Wilson Schaef and Diane Fassel recently authored a book titled The
Addictive Organization. The authors propose the notion that organizations themselves may become addicts and function in ways similar to individual addicts. Can campus ecologies reflect an addictive process?
One of the major symptoms of an addictive organization involves the communication process (ecology of signs). The communication process is marked by the following: Communication is indirect; Gossip is widespread; Memos are used to confuse; Triangulation occurs; Secrecy prevails, and Mundane, logical and rational replaces passion. Given that these conditions prevail on many of our campuses, DeVillo Sloan's comments on the importance of assessing the ecology of campus information systems is underlined.
Residence Halls:
John Schuh, a frequent contributor to the campus ecology perspective, has
contributed an article to the NASPA Journal (Vol. 27, No. 3, 1990) titled:
Streamlining the Ecosvstem Approach to Residence Hall Environmental
Assessment. The article reports what has been learned after eleven applications of the ecosystem model at two large public institutions and is organized in two
sections: (1) What has been learned and (2) Unresolved problems.
What has been learned:
Schuh notes the following: (1) It helps to institutionalize the assessment
process; (2) Build in expectations for the assessment; (3) Time is minimal; (4)
Cost is minimal; (5) Technical problems can be worked out; (6) Students should
participate in the process; (7) Use environmental referents in the assessment; (8)
The assessment should remain flexible and open to new input; (9) Multiple
reports formultiple groups; (10) The assessment process and results provided
input for planning and training.
Unresolved problems:
Schuh noted the following problems: (1) The tendency to change or fine
tune items over time cause problems with comparability of results; (2) By
opening up participation, departments and personnel of varying skills contributed
to the assessment producing an unevenness in quality; (3) The ecosystem
assessment process is not the total answer to the issue of campus change.
On balance, Schuh recommends the process for improving living
environments with and for students.
Campus Activities:
Gerardo Gonzales has authored a recent contribution titled Understanding
the Campus Community: A Ecological Paradigm. The article appears as a chapter in the publication Designing Campus Activities to Foster a Sense of Community, edited by Dennis Roberts and published by Jossey-Bass in 1989.
The importance of the interaction of persons, settings, and events is
highlighted in the article. The presentation of this interaction is built on the
classical work of Trickett, Kelly, and Vincent (1985). The importance of this
interaction is discussed in terms of: (1) Conservation, management, and creation
of resources; (2) The activating qualities of the resources; and (3) Coping and
adaptation. In the discussion of these concepts, examples of applications to
student activities programming are presented. Again, as noted in the Schuh article
(opposite column) the importance of assessment and redesign of the environment
is stressed.
Gonzales concludes by stating: "There is a growing consensus that student
development efforts must do more than help individual students ... develop ...
campus activities programs must seek to change the environment..." (p. 24).
Reference:
Trickett, E., Kelly, J., & Vincent, T. (1985). The spirit of ecological inquiry in community research. In E. Susskind & D. Klien (Eds.)., Community research: Methods, paradigms, and applications. New York: Praeger Press.
Attention of the reader is also directed to a recent article by M. Sergent and W. Sedlacek (Journal of College Student Development V. 31(3), pp. 255-261). The article, Volunteer Motivations Across Student Organizations: A Test of Person- Environment Fit Theory, is another example of the application of the ecological perspective (specifically John Holland's typology) to student activities programs. They report their findings support person-environment fit theories.
Definition:
Sless, D. (1986). In search of semiotics. Totowa, NJ: Barn and Nobel Books.
"Semiotics is the study of communications and understanding..." (p. 5).
"Our written and spoken language, pictures, mathematics, film, television, dress, gesture, indeed all the elements that go to make up the communication environment which we create and in which we are immersed, offer a rich sometimes bewildering variety, yet we suspect that in some basic way all these different things have something in common. Semiotics tries to define what it is they have in common and what distinguishes them from each other." (p. 1)
"At the heart of semiotics is semiosis-the process of making and using signs. (p. 9).
Introductory Readings:
Berger, A. (1984). Signs in contemporary culture: An introduction to semiotics.
New York: Longman.
Clarke, D. (1987). Principles of semiotics. New York: Routledge & Kegan.
Deely, J. (1982). Introducing semiotics: Its history and doctrine. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Frutiger, A. (1989). Signs and symbols. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Sebeok, T. (1986). (Ed.) Encyclopedia dictionary of semiotics. New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Architectural Readings:
Bonta, J. (1979). Architecture and its interpretation: A study of expressive
systems in architecture. London: Lund Humphries.
Duffy, F. & Freedman (1970). Patterns and semiology. H. Sanoff & S. Cohn
(Eds.). EDRA 1. Chapel Hill, NC: EDRA
Preziosi, D. (1979) The semiotics of the built environment: An introduction to
architectonic analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications. (Good critique: note pages 35-43).
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.