Precursorsto a Family Ecology:
Interrelated Threads of Ecological Thought
DONALD A. HERRIN AND SCOTT D. WRIGHT*
In this article we attempt an histoical overview of the relevant developments
and streams of tlrcught in ecologt and lwman ecologt in order to establish a
framework for tlrc study of family life from an ecological perspective. In part two
of tltis paper (to be publislted in the next issue o/ Family Science Review), we
will identify and discuss in more detail the important cortsiderations and
constntcts of ecologt we believe are applicable to the study of family ltft.
With the growing interest in using an ecological perspective in home economics,
family studies, family therapy, and human development, we believe it is both a timely
and necessary endeavor to carefully explore the potential for connecting the principles
of ecology to the study of family life. It is our intent to demonstrate that ecology is-not
simply a tempting Tnitgeist, but is a conceptual force to be carefully and fruitfully
utilized for decades to come in the study of family life. We begin with a brief history oi
ecology in the biological sciences and the emergence of human ecology in sociology.
THE BACKGROUND OF ECOLOGY IN BIOLOGY AND
THE EMERGENCE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
The word "ecology" communicates many things to people. There is agreement that
the denotation of ecology comes from the Greek word "oikos," meaning house (which
has come to mean an organism's most immediate or natural environment, inciuding
b-Lotr-.
1".d. abiotic components), combined with "logos," 6sanilg knowledge. virtually
all definitions of ecology include a focus on organisms, their environment, and the
interrelation.ships between them. Pinning dov*n the connotation of ecology, however, is
not at all clear or unified. Much of this difficulty can be attributed to ecology's
polymorphic nature and the diversity of its origins and applications.
Mclntosh (1985) cautions against trying to identify direct historical connections in
ecologybecauseecology"is more a bush with multiple stemsand a diffuse rootstock than
a.tree with a single,well-defined trunk and roots" (p.7). Given the general consensus
about what ecology basically denotes,this metaphor can help us understand why there
i Donald A. Herrin is an assistantprofessorin the Department
of Family and ConsumerStudies
at the Universityof Utah, Salt Lake City, tIT 8410. ScottD. Wright is in assistantprofessorin
the samedepartment.
Key words:- ecolory, human ecolory,family ecolory,ecosystems,
ecologicalperspectives,
home
economics,family studies,family science,
lFamily ScienceRwianr, Vol 1, No. 3, August 1988,pp. 163-183]
163
are so many connotationsof ecologybeing utilized today as a function of where it is
applied,to what, and for what. Part of our analysisis intendedto exploreand provide
understanding,ofthis variability in the applicationand utilization of ecologyind the
implicationsof thesenuancesin determiningthe usageof an ecologicalperJpective.
d
Althoug! there is argumentregardingthe proper "paternal"or "maternal"origins
- ecology (i.e.,
ofEllen Swallow Richards, charles Darwin, Henry David rhoreiu),
acknowledgmentis given to Ernst Haeckel,a German zoologist,for coining the term
"ecology"in 1866. Most historiansof ecology(e.g.,Allee, Emerson,park, & Fark, 1949;
Egerton, L977;Mclntosh, 1985;Stauffer,1957;worster" 1977)agreethat ecologyas an
idea or orientation towards the study of nature existedbefori t866. Such an idea
initially emergedduring the eighteenthcentury as the body of knowledgeand inquiry
entailed in what was called the "economyof nature." This natural philosophy-was
derived from the study of phenomenaand philosophicalconcernsalsb found in the
works of Western civilization's earliest known philosophersand naturalists. This
"economyof nature' included the developmentof two distinct forms that are still
represented,at leastin spirit, in different viewsof ecologicalthought today. Theseare
the "arcadian" and "imperial" traditions (Mclntosh, 1985; woister, 1977). Their
respectiveviewsof natute, in essence,
pivot on the perceivedrelationshipof humankind
to other organismsand the environment.
Hl
fr
b.{ts
The "arcadian"traditign emphasizedthe attainment of a simple, humble, and
harmonious coexistenceof humans and other life forms in the environment'they
commonlyshared. This view was typified in the writings of Gilbert White, a BritisL
parsonand holistic thinking naturalist. In contrast,the "imperial" tradition sought to
establishand maintain humanify'sascendancyover nature through the applicationof
humanity'scap_acity
to.reasonand implementdesignedstrategies(hu-att ind .esource
management)for obtainingdominionover other life forms and the'environment.While
this tradition canbe tracedto the British philosopherof science,FrancisBacon,it is best
exemplifiedby the works of the SwedishbotanistCarl Linneaus. The clearintent of the
imperialists was to establishecology as a hard mechanisticsciencerather than the
holistic and organismicperspectivefor viewingnature and its history that wasadvocated
by the arcadians.
,- Many historiansof sciencedo not find it particularlyuseful to considerthesetwo
traditions in understandingthe development-of ecology in the biological sciences
(bioecology)..They arguethat-ecologyb-egan,at leastin-ile senseof a fJrmal science,
with either the emergenceof Darwinian evolutionarybiology or the advent of the
e.cosystemconceptor both (Kormondy & McCormick, 19g1). Nevertheless,we think
thesetraditionsare worth lslaining ashistoricaland conceptualreferencepoinisbecause
they_arehelpful in und_erstanding
how and why much of iumao ecologyias developed
(or flounder.ed,dependingon one's.point of view) independentof bioJcology. we wiu
return to this matter later in our discussion.In concluiion, at least from in historical
perspe-ctive, is
_it -fairlyyfe t9 say that "the emergenceof ecologyis relatively poorly
known"(Mclntosh,
1985,p. 23). Its current statusis more clearlyI'etneated. t'here arl
three general areas of emphasisthat together representth'e pluralistic nature of
contemporarybioecology(Mclntosh,1988;May & Seger,19g6). Theserhree general
g9 corrtntutrityandpopulationecologl,ecosystem
ecologt, andbelrcvioralicotog.
_T-eas
We will-briefly describetheseareaswith their reipective
and brief historfis
"*!huses studyof the human
to establishthe historicalcontextfor the emergenceof the ecoiogical
species.
L64
Family Science Review
August. 1988
ri t
nr
r4
tIII
.-I
ff
-drfl
e*
brt
GCJ'El'
dl
!F,
c3-
b. a.
c.qr
drrgt
daJ-
b-t
a .E
Fr
-s
E
irf-
G:nr
ct-
Flir.
Gooh3r
C-rfr
O'
i
GgE
cor
ooc
r$tc,
rgtr!
Ilr*dtt
fa.
ncri(r
Bctrrb
6gafu
cgl@
atl.v c!
LbcorJ ,
PcrsPcc
Arg:Js-
Community and Population Ecologt
It is quite clear that botany provided the catalyst in the 1890's for ecology to
_
become a recognizable and distinct discipline with scientific credentials. Olttet
sub-disciplines of biology such as marine biology (oceanography), freshwater biology
(limnology), and Iinally zoology began to integrate ecologiial principles into their
scientific methodology. With this integration came a recognized senie of shared interests
in ecological principles across the sub-disciplines. At thil time, individuals and species
were se-enas o-rganismsthat acted out specific roles in various relationships with others
at the level of the community and species (May & Seger, 1986). In their study of
communities and species populations, ecologists are typically interested in processei or
mechanisms such as survival, adaptation, niche selection, competition, food acquisition,
and predator-prey relations.
Ecosystem Ecologt
In 1935, a British lelenisf, Arthur Tansley, provided a major boost to the field of
ecology.by introducing the term "ecosystem"to represent the entire complex of the biotic
and abiotic community as a distinct level of analysis in the hierarcly of biological
sy-sleTs:.In L953, Fugene odum added a new perspectiveto ecosystemecology.-He
called this perspective "ecoenergetics"because its central focus wai the analysiJ'of the
flow of energy and,for matter in, through, and out of ecosystems. For Odum,
ecoenergetics,or systemsecology, made possible the study of the structure and function
of nature with the ecosystemas the basic unit of analysis. Odum was interested in levels
of organization other than populations of individual organisms or speciesin communities.
I1 t$ view of ecosystem,the emphasis was on the workings of dynamic systemswhere
all elements, organisms, and aspects of the environment were highly interrelated and
interdependerit (May & seger, L986). If one could understand-how such dynamic
systems were structured and how they functioned, then they could be regulated.
Mclntosh- (1985) observes that the ecosystem concept itself was perceived to be
. .
inadequate and insufficient
thermodynamics, cybernetics and genera-lsystemstheory
_un_til
(Bertalanfff, L950, 1962, 1-968;Buckley,.1968; T.aszlo, 1972; Shugart & O'Neill Lg7gi
,
were- integrated with ecosystem analysis and its own mix of biology, chemistry and
physics. Such an integration was perceived by ecosystem ecologiits as increasing
ecology's scientific rigor and_helping establish "ecosystem" as the piemiere ecological
concept in all of bioecology. Ecosystem ecology has been criticized ior its overempiasis
on ecoenergetics, its obsession with calories, and its organismic assumptions ibout
ecosystems as cybernetic entities that are self-regulating and self-organtzng systems
991tro_lledby information-carryng feedback loops (Engel6erg & BoyarJry, sfs; GotJey,
1,984;Gross, L984;Jordan, 1981;Knight & Swaney, 198L;Moran, L9g4a;pitten & Odum,
1981).
Belnvioral Ecologt
More recently, behavioral ecology has emerged and generated considerable
attention in contemporary bioecology (Krebs & Divies, 19g1; May & Seger, L9g6).
Behavioral ecology focuses on how evolution, by natural selection at the level of an
organi5p'5 genotype, shapes an organism's fundamental social behavior and social
organization (Kt*r & Davies, L98L;Trivers, 19g5). Most of bioecology,from its very
e-arlyeme-rgence,in some way or another, has drawn upon elements of iharles Darwin,s
theory of evol'rtion. so for
yeals, there hai been an evolutionary ecology
-many
perspective' As ecosystem ecology
gained a strong foothold, evolutionary
*it
".btogy
August,1988
Family Science Review
165
often used as a counterpoint to ecosystemecology to highlight the relative strengths and
weaknessesof the different ecologies (Smith, 198a).
Behavioral ecology builds on the relatively recent integration of Mendelian genetics
and principles of evolutionary biology to advance ways of thinking of how certain
charaeteristics, traits, structures or behavior of an individual organism may benefit itself
and related organis,ns (Hamillsn, L964). Most of the work done in sociobiology during
the 1970sand 1980s (e.9",Alexander, 1979; Barash, L982; Williams, 1981; Wilson, 1975)
has become part and parcel ofbehavioral ecology" It is the application of principles of
sociobiology to the study of organisms in their environments and their interrelationships
with other species that distinguishes behavioral ecolog5i from other models of
evolutionary ecology. Like the other approaches in bioecology, behavioral ecology also
is heavily criticized on various philosophical and methodological grounds (Kitcher, 1985;
Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Sahlins, L976).
Obviously, such an abbreviated discussion of the major threads of bioecology is
going to suffer from oversimplifications, overgeneralizations, and a host of other faults.
Our purpose in including this historic material was to lay a foundation for discussing if,
how, and where humans enter into considerations of ecology. Having identified thise
three major currents in bioecolory as a backdrop, we now will discuss in the foreground
the emergence of ecological studies of humans that inform our interests in an ecological
perspective for studying family life. It is here that we return very appropriately to
ecological perspectives represented in the arcadian and imperial traditions.
In addition to bioecology's emergence as a scientific enterprise, at least beginning
in the L960s,ecology also problematically emerged as a "pop" philosophy and movemeni
that was seen as having answers to many of the energy and environmeutal crises
confronting the human population at that time. Ecology had begun to influence the
public's consciousnessregarding human interrelationships in local and global ecosystems.
This concern was evident earlier in the 1930s at the beginning ofl the conservation
movement (e.g., John Muir, Aldo Leopold) which then provided a popular partisan
rallyrng position (complete with "arcadian" values and agendas) for thl enviroimental
movement in the 1960s (Mclntosh, 1985). In many ways, this contemporary movement
highlighted in a-very public and often heated arena the contrasting values and agendas
of arcadian and imperialist ways of viewing humankind and thJ environment.* fnis
leqly simultaneous "emergences"of ecology was problematic because ecologists had to
balance the role of ecology as a science with what the public wanted ecolory to be as a
philosophy and ethical fra-ework (Mclntosh, 1985).
In essence,this recast a very old :nd important question into a very contemporary
and politically "hot" context. What is the nature of the relationship ber'ween humans,
other organisms, and their environment? Are humans a part of the grand ecologicai
scheme of:tature (the
_arcadianview) or are humans separaie from the giobal ecosys=tem
because of humankind's_technological and cultural characteristics and capabititiei (tne
imperialist view)? Are humans subject to the same ecological principlej as plant ind
animal populations and therefore responsible for conserving .eloutcls in sharing the
same ecosystem? Are humans superior to other members and elements in the
ecosystemand therefore responsibleonly to themselves?A related set of questionscan
be asked about the relations between bioecology and an ecological study of humankind.
Are the different tracks,of bioecology sufficiently inclusive to cover humans as part of
some overall science of ecology? Are humans sufficiently different as a species to
requte their own ecological principles?
Tbt
tlcrc rh
bc tLd
fltf-a
Jl:;tr
TbG.
r lftl
bcbirb
cl*r
Efr-5
Ah
L l9[.4
c:l:bba
Li*
ooOqS
cqrbt
fficr
-tioro{
gD
qcli
rftYc
Se
hOt.
rfi
Uoaofd
blqJ
b blr
aiii
tb
-Gq
d
Hr
T5
t
prib
.dFa
Ulo*1
grft r
befrb
dbi
src
c ir pfl
buoenfit
dilfcrc
reaeir I
cDrL bci
Arl
ecologt t
166
Familv Science Review
August,1988
Augus- I
is
_ These queriesare all somewhatdifferent waysof askingthe primary quesrion,
-bioecology
there a huryayeco_logt?
If so,whatmannerof ecologyshouldit bef Shouid
be the model to follow for a human ecology(or a family ecology)? There havebeJn
manyanswersto thesequestionsover the years,and they are at the heart of the criticism
and skepticismof hu.nan ecologyby ecologistswith strongbioecologicalbackgrounds.
These.qlestionshavebeen askedfor many yearsin somewhatdifferent forms6ut they
ail highlight where biological and social scienceperspectivesof humans and human
behaviorhavebeen cast.primarilyas adversariesinpolemic debatesabout the mutually
exclusiveversusinteractiveinlluencesof "nature"and "nurture"upon human behavior.
Ecologt in Sociologt-Human Ecologt
Although the historicalfoundationsof human ecologyare lesswell definedbefore
the-1-920s,
the emergenceapp-eared
to havecrystallizedin the disciplineof sociologyas
evidentin the earlywritingsof Robert E. Park,RoderickMcKenzie.ErnestBureesJind
their studentsat the uni.vers.itysf Qhicago(seeyoung, l-983b). For theseearlf human
ecologists,the communily (fity) and its economicbase were the important analytic
categoriesof humancivilization. Their earlywork was informedby researchconducied
in bioecologybycommunityand populationecologists.Hawley(L944)notedthat human
ecologyemergedabruptlyon the sociologicalscenein the 1"920i,experienceda sudden
ascentto-popllaritY, and then came under considerablecriticism and eventually
separateditself from the mainstreamof bioecologicalthoughtaltogether(Hawley,1"944,
1986;Young, L974,1983a).
Somesocialscientistsintegrated,coucepts
and concernsfrom biologyand sociology,
!9t !h9y did so with little or no thoughttowardsunifyingtheoreticalconcernsacrossthe
disciplinesborrowingfrom the substanceof bioecology(Hawley, 1_944).Consequently,
bioecologistssawlittle-being do-n9by hrrmnaecologislsior them to respondto exceii
9V YUI of criticism. This casualborrowing of conceptsand ideasby human ecologisis
has.ledman,yto challengethat a human eiology exislsat all and is bne of three m]jor
criticismsbioecologistshavemade of human eCology.
The severalusesof th-"
ry-ota[ecology]in the sociarscienceswere largely
window ,dressing, with little reference to ecologists and their id-eas.
Geography,sociology,and other disciplinesconcernedwith humans,their
cultures,and their relationsto the environmentsometimesadoptedthe name
'
but rarely the substanceof ecology.(Mclntosh, 1"9g5,
p. 309)
This lack of exchangeof substantiveecologicalideas was compoundedby the
position
by pany- social scientiststhat human ecology should'develop as an
-takenindependent
disciplineaom bioecology (Hawley, 1944). fhir *us not ro iay that
bioecologistsshouldn'tbe interestedin the humar, sp"iies as part of their
".oiogical
studiesso much as it was to saythat thoseexpresslyinterestedin humansand
human
behavior.(h9ngn ecologists)fclt that humanswere sufficientlydifferent from plantsand
otheranimalsthat-theyn-egde{to departconsiderably
from bioecologyin order to study
accuratelythe ecology.ofthe humanspecies.They arguedthat conieptsin additionto
or in placeof thoseutilized in bioecology*e.e .teededto understandthe uniquenessof
humankindin relationto its physical(biotic andabiotic) and culturalenvironmints. This
differencein viewsaboutthe ecologicalstudyof humankindhasneverbeenresolvedand
remainsas a secondcriticismand major obslacleto mutual appreciationand respectfoi
work being done by different groupsof ecologists
A third criticism and reasonfor the lack of respectfor or confidencein human
ecologycan be attributedto the imperialistnatureof much of socialscience.Dunlap
August, 1988
Family Science Rer.iew
167
(1980)hasproposedthat socialsciencehasbeen traditionally"unecological"becauseof
the-commonanthropocentric_assumption
that humansare eiempt froil responsibilities
and concernsabout their ecologyand that "the socialscienceshive largelyignored the
fact that human societiesdepeadonthe biophysicalenvironmentfor ti'eii sirvival" (p.
5). Dunlap (1980) argues that this anthropocentrismis best characterizedas an
"exemptionalistparadigm" (see also Catton.& Du"lap, 19g0),but it has been slowly
giving-way-toanemerging "ec-ological
paradigrn"in the sociaijciences. This ecological
paradigmis much more arcadianin its nature and acknowledges
the human speciJsas
.on]l one of many interdependentglobal members who sh-arethe same delicately
balanced ecosystem.
has generated considerable optimism about th;
- Tnil
reestablishment
of a viable
human ecology that can contribute to the substanceof
ecology(catton & D"4qp, 1980;Micklin,19g4). However,this optimism should be
temperedby the generaltailure of any past interdisciplinaryartemptsby bioecologyand
human ecgl_ogyto in1sOu1"one anoiher's substanceinio a co-mo"ly snutefi aoJ
understoodbody of knowledgeabout ecology(Mclntosh, 19g5).
On the other hand,it shouldbe pointed out that this resurgenceof humanecology
h-aPPened,
virtually simultaneously,with the emergenceof botf, social and intellectu7l
changesthroughout the-generalpublic and academiathat were representedin a new
"spirit-of 1[e tims5" that emphasizedhotstic thinking and humankind'sgrowing
ecologicalconsciousness"
In this new and emergent"spirit-ofthe times,"holism,J.ofogy]
New Science,and New Age
_philosolhyall came to the forefront together. Th;#
not
onlytimely,
but i'r rfie wordsof-a prominentNew Ageihinker, Frirj;]
*-g"9_ygle
Capra (1982),declaredthat thesechangeswere imperative:
I'm sayingthat we are in the midst of a paradigmshift; the old paradigmis
the cartesian,Newtonianworld view, the mechanisticworld view. thJnew
paradigmis the holistig ecologicalview. And we needthis shift of perception.
Our so,ciety,our universities,our corporations,our economSour technology,
our polidss,are all structuredaccordingto the old cartesian paradigm. ffe
needthe shift. ( p.243)
Thus, ecologyand
!he.emerging-holisticworld views of the time were not only
mutually-compatiblein their
perspectives,but also becameinternvinedin issuestha't
transcendedmattersof science.The momentumfor integratingecologicalp"*p*ti*,
i" PTy disciplineswasin.full swing and because"ecoloff' beclamesy"ooyi"o"i with a
holisticp-erspective,
it too becameipart of the trend in iany departmentsand colleges
to identify wit! a "humanecology."while it is too early to detertine how thesetrends
may collectivelyinlluencefuture interdisciplinaryefforts in ecology,it is not too
io
acknowledgethat these,trendshavecometogeth-erin a different cluituratand intellectual
"*iv
milieu rhat appearsto be very interestedin'trolistic and ecologicalcooceros. It will
be
interestingto see how thesechangesin the "spirit of the time!" *ill irrflu"n"e renewed
interestsin human ecology.
how humanecologyh35adaptedmanyconceptsfrom
{e hayepreviouslydiscussed
bioecologyin an effort to understandsocial organizition and'the interielationships
of
humans and their. physical environments. F5r example,it is- wiaent that human
ecologrststrom variousdisciplineshaveutilized the ecosyitemconceptto a great degree.
But it should be noted that most of this interest has been fuelea Uy 6io".otoil.J
influencesfrom communityand population ecologyand not from ecosyst".
'in
".oiogy.
[For further discussionof ihe ecosystemconcept the social scienc"r, ,"" Bouldiig,
1978;Kuhn, 1974,:.975:in sociology,seeMickiin & choldin, 19gab;in
-irrroporogy,il?
Y9.-, 1984b;in home economicsand fqity studies,seeAndrews,Bubolz,
a p"81"..1,
1-980;Bubolz, Eicher, & Sontag, L979;Deicon & Firebaugh,rgfir; paolucci,
Hall. &
1,68
Family Science Review
August,1988
A.il,lTfi
h-frrq
tL#
c4dl
NE
;--rJl
r&tl
taArd
tdl
bb:.l
(ildl
bE
Tcl
H
rq
*r
TBIr
bcAlt
(s-
r
o-,t
-!la
otlir
fl
(oil1lrr
Fr,
dt
God1t
Lltr
Gadtirl
rEE
FE-a
I
llih}
*
Uql
r&F
sd
of b
3o5d c.d
€tild d
dillcrcu
ccolo;;/ |
rnd dd
ool as to
ccrrooni
Asgug- l'
Axinn, L977; n human development, see Bronfenbrenner, L977a, 1977b, 1979, 1986; in
family therapy, see Auerswald, L987.l There are others, however, who have questioned
the application to human populations of some of the assumptions of the bioecological
concept of "ecosystem" such that its usage in the social sciences and human ecology is
problematic (Hawley, 1984;Micklin,L984; Smith,1984). Given this ambiguity about the
concept of "ecosystem,"Young (1974) is concerned that "no one seems very sure of how
to define a human ecosystem and no one can be positive what is meant when a student
from another discipline uses the term" (p. 86).
An additional concern has been raised that has important implications for the
theoretical potential of the ecological perspective in the study of humans and human
behavior. Micklin and Choldin (198aa) have asked: To what degree can human ecology
(with such a broad and comprehensive scope) predict and/or explain the wide range of
human behavior? They gave the following response:
To date, no version of sociological or any other human ecology had
demonstrated these abilities. Thus we need to speciry more clearly the
strengths and weaknessesof the ecological perspective as an approach to the
study of social organization. (p. 429)
This suggeststhe very reai possibility that after all is said and done, human ecology may
!s limited to being a heuristic device, without any potential as a working theoretical tool
(Southwood, 1980). This possibility is of great concern to us as well. With the growing
interest a"d activig of utilizing the ecological paradigm in home economics, family
studies, family therapS and in the human development field, we believe that we also are
obliged to exercise closer scrutiny in our domain.
EMERGENCE OF ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES IN THE STUDY
OF FAMILY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Over the last decade or so, human ecology has become the "new" name for many
colleges and departments that were once associated with traditional home economics
progrnm5. Given that ecolog5land [home] economics are derived from the same Greek
word "oikos" (or house), one should feel comfortable that the spirit of the meaning of
ecology is as highly appropriate to the study of the family and home envLonment is it
is to the natural environments in botany and zoology. Yet, as more disciplines claim an
ecological perspective in their method or approach (seemingly unaware of or
unconcerned with the criticisms of human ecology mentioned earlier), they often are
young,
plileive{
ry.co-opting the designation of "human ecology'' (May & Seger, L982,
while
we
agree
with
(1983a)
Young
that no artempt should be made by any
1?8?u)..
discipline to monopolize "human ecolog/' for their own exclusive use, we are cooce.oed
that usagesof human ecology be substantive and explicit in their utilization of ecological
underpinnings.
Such concerns have been raised about the usage of human ecology by the discipline
of home economics becauseto many people their usage does not appear to rest on a
solid ecological foundation, given its "traditional" approach to the study of the family,
child and home (Young, 1983a). This appears to be a matter of judgLment between
different perspectives and justifications of whose ideas of ecology o7 wlnt kinds of
ecology are credible and respected. Nevertheless, it is a matter that needs attention
and careful examination. For example, at this point in time, we suspect, the jury is stili
out as to whether or not the transition to the "new name" of human ecology by home
economics represents a gen tine and substantive change in theoretical, metfiodological,
August, 1988
Farnily Science Review
L69
and applied studies in a human ecological vein or a name switching strategy to represent
s alodepizstion of traditional home economics.
e.i*xgiC F
r-b. tig'a
ilsriiltr
On the other hand, bioecologists and human ecologists critical of this application
of ecology as a holistic theoretical approach to the family by home economists need to
recall that it is not as novel or recent an application as some might believe. It has been
accurately pointed out that the application of ecological concepts for improving human
life and well-being (a major goal of home economics) has unique historical connections
dating back to the turn of the century (East, 1980; Edwards, 1985a; Kilsdonk, 1983;
Melson, L980).
re{- Errl
Based on these observations, we will now proceed to examine the historical
ecological connections rithtnhome economics andfarnily sudies. In addition, we believe
that the origins of ecological studies in the domains of.family therapy and life-span
lruman development are germane to the current concepts utiLized in family studies. By
doing this, we hope to make more clear just exactly what ecological underpinnings have
been and are present in current efforts in family sciences to utilize an ecological
perspective in viewing family phenomena.
c@l
b rb t-:
rilru
#q!r'a b
brl
tlr tlrl
rdttst
ccij
'c[ctr c
nt
t . bG *i
dtccroLr
EC .I
r
Ecologt in Home Economics and Family Studies
bcc-
The beginnings of the ecological foundation in home economics are usually
identified with the writings of Ellen Swallow Richards (circa 1890s) and the proceedings
at the fourth Lake Placid Conference n L902 (East, 1980). Ellen Swallow Richards is
credited with developing a home ecologt which focused on the application of science to
improving the immediate home environment of hu-ans (Kilsdonk, 1983). Because her
perspective examined reciprocal influences between individuals and their home
environment, her biographer (Clarke, 1-973)heralded Swallow Richards as "the woman
who founded ecology." Swallow Richards' implicit scientific rationale for home
economics was related to the application of the principles of scienee to the betterment
of households (also known as oekologt or "euthenics") in order to strengthen the welfare
and enhance the quality of life of family members (Bubolz & Sontag, 1986; East, 1980).
doci brr
i 5ct
tlr|ib
Jh
crfi,
o crf
c{-
This became the foundation of a human ecology that is closely identified with the
heart and soul of the mission of home economics in the early 20th century (Paolucci,
1980). Yet this mission somehow became diffused and lost within the discipline, and in
its place emerged a much more traditional home economics (Brown, 1984). Although
the human ecological perspective was claimed tobe implicil q,1i1hinthe early beginnings
of home economics, there is little or uo established lineage between the "home oekology"
of the early 20th century and the renewed interest in human ecology that culninated
during the 1960s and 1970s in colleges and departments of home economics realigning
themselves with "Human Ecology." In other words, for about 60 years there has been
an uplicit void of ecological thought in the discipline that is either left unexplained or
blamed on natural science hegemony (Belclq 1985; Bubolz & Sontag, 1986; East, 1980;
Paolucci, 1980). One way or another, it appeared that the "time was not right" for home
economics to carry the banner of a budding ecology, instead we have to assume that
home economics quietly relinquished their ecological label to the biologists and then
bowed under the politics of uriversity administrators who relegated home economics to
concerns of women and children, which therefore represented a lower academic status.
rl
cfld
CIGT
i
Lna
8dc
r*i
qd
Sg,
c{il
l.
cci
rcd
lndl
rri
fdy r
cry*
rffIr
crdnl
€oatidct
Just as some argue home economics' ecological underpinnings disappeared because
the "time was not right," others argue that home econonics' interest in human ecology
suddenly reappeared becausethe "time was right." Whether the attribution is accurate
or not, many assume that the interest and scholarly activity of different disciplines in
$'l
bouchc
H.rasca.
rirtua\
r70
Augus-
Family Science Review
August,1988
ecological paradigms during the 1,960sand 1970swas the natural result of the "spirit of
the times" discussedearlier. This was a time when the general public and academic
institutions became involved in consciousnessraising due to environmental concerns
(e.g., Earth Day). Some departments and colleges associatedwith traditional home
economics programs explicitly changed their names and identities to "Human Ecology"
in the late 1960s and 1970s as an organized effort to provide both faculty and students
with a more holistic approach to improving the quality of life of humans in a manner
desiped to reflect their growing awiueness of the need to understand the interaction of
humans with their environments (see Edwards, 1985b). However, it should be stated
that this "sudden" ecological awareness or holistic approach to understanding humans
and their environments in the early 1,970sgave the appearance to many that home
economics' interest in or identification with human ecolory originated as part of the
"eureka complex" in ecology (Young 1983a).
Regardless of the accuracy of a perceived dormanry of ecological thought between
the early 1900s and the recent surge of interest in human ecology, the goals and
objectives of home economics have always stressed a broad multidisciplinary approach
to the study of families and households that was fundamentally holistic. Yet, despite
home economics' perceived historically unique and holistic approach, over time, it also
became more specialized, focusing on improving home and family life but on "weak
disciplinary bases" (Paolucci, 1980).
If holism is defined as being virtually s)'nonymous with ecology (and many people
do equate the concepts), then to the extent that home economics can make the case that
it has a strong lineage of holism in its emphaseson the family and human development,
it also can claim it has a strong lineage of ecology. However, this is not as easy or as
straightforward as it may seem. Trying to clearly pin down holism is at least as slippery
and demandiog ao undertaking as doing the same for ecology (for the intricacies ofthis
endeavor, see Mclntosh, 1985). Another possible avenue for home economics to take
to establish its claim to a strong ecological heritage would be for it to demonstrate its
continued use and development of its early underpinnings in home oekology in its
current interests in human ecology or a contemporary home oekology that iould be
hjghly compatible with other threads of contemporary ecological thought.
+o*9 to be
Based on our historical study, it appearsthat some attempts by home economistswire
made that employed this latter strategy in connecting the history of the household
economics-home management approach to the study of the family (Hill, Katz, &
simpson, 1957; Rice, 1966) with the more recent family ecosystemsapproach (Andrews
et al., 1980).
It is interesting to note that Hill et al. (1957) originally had identified the household
economics-home management approach (associated with traditional home economics)
3!._9neof-the major conceptual frameworks in family studies. Yet, only three years later,
Hill andHansen (1960) dropped the household economics-home manigement approach
as a.-major conceptual framevTqll because it no longer met the criteria (selected by
family_sociologists) as a theoretical force in family studies. In a later publication thai
expanded the range of conceptual frameworks for studying family life (Nye & Berardo,
L966),an-approach representing home economicswas again included that highlighted the
central importance of resource management, decision-making, aod Jconomic
considerations to the well-being of the family and its members (Ric;, 1966).
What we find interesting about the apparently theoretically dead and buried
h_ousehold-economics/household-managementapproach in famiiy studies (Hill &
Hansen, 1960) is the unique "timing" (circa 1960) of the pronouncement. It happened
virtually simultaneouslywith the emergenceof the new "ipirit of the times" mentioned
August,1988
Family Science Review
r7r
earlier that emphasized holistic thinking and an emerging ecological consciousness. As
we described earlier, the holistic paradigm was very much a part of the philosophical
orientation of home economics from its earliest inception. Furthermore, certain
"ecological" concepts were also being identified as components of the overall focus of
some home economics departments; note the emphasis on the words "interaction",
"interdependent", and "environment" in the following statement by Hook and Paolucci
(1e70):
In retrospect, ecology might have been a suitable choice of name for the area
of study now known as home economics, for the term forces one to emphasize
the interdependent relationship between man and his environment. In the
field of home economics, this interdependent relationship basically focuses on
the home as a life support system for family members; that is, provision of
both physical and social nurturance ....Home economists attend to the
interaction of man as a total being and his near environment, especiallyas tltis
interaction is managed by the family...A solution to [environmental] problems
requires welding together the physical, biological, and social sciencesto help
define and achieve an environment of quality satisfactory to human well-being
and aspiration. (emphasis original, pp. 315-318)
A retrospective analysis describing the connections between the holistic nature of
an ecological perspective and the study of the complexities in family dynamics is offered
by Andrews et al. (L980). What is significant about the following statement is how a
"renewed attention to the ecological nature of hunans" relates to the shifting of
theoretical perspectives within the discipline (possibly reflecting the much larger
paradigm change that had occurred in many disciplines):
In some respects a family ecological framework is a reconceptualizslisn sf 1[s
earlier household-economics home management approach developed prior to
1950....During the 1960s and early 1970s, family research began to provide
insights into the necessifyfor viewing the interrelatedness and interdependence
of family members and those environments which impinge upon them. This
led to a reawakening of the need to view the family from an ecological
perspective. (p.32)
So the need for a holistic approach for investigating and solving "modern" problems
of human societies was recognized. However, the question remained: by what means
(empirically speaking) can the end (the well-being of individuals and families) be
attained in an holistic paradigm? Was the holistic perspective to be limited to a hazy
description of values and ethics?
Erter generalsystentstheory (Bertalanffy, 1950, 1962,L968;Boulding, 1-978;Buckley,
1968; Laszlo,1972; Miller, 1955; Sutherland, L975), social systentsanalysis (Kuhn, 1974,
1975), systemsecologt (Odum, 1-968;Odum, L97L,1983; Shugart & O'Neill, 1979), and
the re-emergence of the ecotystemconcept (see Mclntosh, 1985). As we have mentioned
earlier in this article, the integration of the "systemsapproach" was eagerly received by
many ecologists because they felt it increased the scientific rigor of ecology. What made
the systemsapproach also attractive to home economists is that it offered concepts which
provided "a holistic view of knowledge generated while holding to scientific rigor"
(Paolucci, 1-980,p. 20; see also Paolucci et a1., L977). Thus, with the integration of
ecosystem ecology, systems ecology, and general systems theory, many disciplines, such
as home economics and family studies, utilized systemsconcepts and further emphasized
the ecological perspective of transactional processesbetween the physical and psychosocial environments (Andrews et al., 1980; Compton & Hall, 1972). Because both the
L72
Family Science Re\dew
August,1988
srgc-d(
*cl1lr
rcldari
dEd
b-
ffr
r o{!
or*
€
r5(t
t'Ib(t
-4
E4
t
xt
f
---.-
tbe
(F#
tUlt
5t
Hdl
.-h
q15G
tb
d,
fl
-ff- t
t--
rdt
r
i3l
-F
J-
rqi
Grlr
cfr
a:
GodE/ i
FGli
tr*r
cj
d- 19,9,
Cr-atpO
Ar
qt
A4rr-
f
systemsand ecologicalapproaches(or "ecosystems")are related to a holistic perspective,
the integration of both are complimentary to the overall mission of home economics and
related disciplines (Edwards, 1985b; Paolucci, 1980) and possibly could be an extension
of home oekology.
In their seminal paper, The Family as an Ecorystem, Hook and Paolucci (1970)
indicated the influence of two work in particular which led to the conceptualization of
an ecological perspective in home economics and family studies. One came from
community and population ecolory in bioecology and the other came from the
community and population perspective in sociological human ecology, Hook and
Paolucci (1970, p. 75) posed the question: "What constitutes the study of the home as
an ecosystem?" In essence,they responded with the definition of ecosystemsarticulated
by Dice (r,955):
Ecosystems...canbe of any size or ecological rank. Thus, a drop of pond water
together with the organisms that are therein constitutes a small ecosystem.
At the extreme, the whole earth and all its plants and animal inhabitants
together constitute a world ecosystem. The concept of ecosystememphasizes
the inter-relations between the group of organi56s that form a community and
its...environment. (as quoted in Hook & Paolucci, 1970, pp.315-316)
The concepts proposed in Duncan's (1959) "ecological complex" or POET model
(population, organizatioq environment, technology) were crucial elements in Hook and
Paolucci's (1970) formulation of an ecological approach in home economics. These
influences are indicative of the connections between sociological human ecology and
Hook and Paolucci's(1970) aspiring newvision for home economics. With Dice's (1955)
carte blanche application of the ecosystem concept to a very large continuum of varied
organizations (i.e., a drop of water to the entire planet itself), it is evident Hook and
Paolucci (1970) envisioned the family and home as a legitimate form of ecosystem as
well. The unique aspect of this approach would enable home economists to avoid the
traditional view of families as separate institutions and instead concentrate on the family
as an "interdependent life support system" within both the natural and, sociql
environments with a focus on the interrelationships (reciprocal factors) that occur among
the various systems and subsystems (Andrews et al., 1980; Bubuolz & Whiren, L984;
Compton & Hall, 1972; Hook & Paolucci, 1970). This ecosystem conceptualization is
intended to be holistic, ecological, and very arcadian as well.
Duncan's (1959) POET model influenced Hook and Paolucci (1970) to
conceptualize the family-in-transactions-with-its-environments as an ecosystem that
included energy flow and transformation processes(food and fuel energy requirements
of family, caloric intake, information feedback loops, etc.). Additional input from
sociological human ecology came through the classicconception of the family by Burgess
(19'26)that embedded the family and its interacting members in an encompassing sotial
environment (Andrews et al., L980; Paolucci et aJ., 1977). However, it was the
integration of general systems theory and systems ecology concepts, from ecosystem
ecology in bioecology and later from social systems analysis (Kuhn, 1974, 1975j, that
provided the impetus for conceptualizing the family as an energyfinformation
transformation systemin later conceptualstudiesby Paolucciand her colleigues in home
economics and family studies (Andrews et al., 1"980;Bubolz & whiren, 1984; Bubolz et
al., 1919; Kilsdonk, 1983; Paolucci et al., 1977). The following is an example of this later
conceptualization:
An ecosystem model is based on a systems perspective, a unifying holistic
model which focuseson the interrelationshipsand feedbackprocessesbetween
August, 1988
Family Science Review
1-a
L IJ
an ecologicalapproachis the assumption
componentsof a system....Underlying
that iumans are part of the total life systemand cannotbe consideredapart
from all other spicies in nature and the environmentsthat surround them.
(Bubolz & Whiren, 1-984,
P. 6)
it shouldbe clear that out of the hybridizationof ecology
From thesediscussions,
and systemstheory one of the primary conceptsthat is utilized in home economicsand
famil!'studies is the ecosystem-coaceptAs *as mentionedearlier, perspectivesof the
are far more laden
that are heavilyinlluencedby ecosystemecolog5r
concept"ecosystem"
with oiher teims and connotationi from systemstheory than Tansley's(1935) original
conceptand the conceptas it is usedin other threadsof ecologicaltho-ught.This is very
as it is usedin the area of home economics
muchihe casefor the concept"ecosystem"
and its contemporaryhuman ecologyas we havebeen discussingit'
E*tali
(--
tsq
HJd
d
5h
-tOr
tEtE
-(ccfi
a
cEl
(Dcf. E
With all of this burgeoningconceptualactivityone may ask "What impact has the
ecosystemconcept or eiological perspectivehad on the theoretical domain in home
economicsand iamily studies? Thii question can be answeredin different ways,
dependingon the source' For example.Holman ?"d Burr (1980)' in a review of the
as a "minor"
growth oifu-ity theoriesin the 1970s,designatedthe ecosystem-approach
in"ory becausethe ecologicalperspectivehad only surfacedin the 1970sand it:
C-cccll'l
errd.
...emergedas part of the emphasison environmentalimpact-andthe use of
systemJapproich in studyingthe family....Itsimpact on the.familf lgta ng
been confiied largely to home economistsand it hasyet to be seenif it will
affect other disciplines. (Holman & Burr, 1980'p. 733)
aDd SFtl
bolbic P
Ironically enough,Hobnan and Burr (1980)listed the systemsLhgotyapproachas
one of the "major"tfeories in the family field. Kantor and Lehr (fSZSlwere identified
a systemsapproachto the famil_y"Yet Holrnan and
asbeing instrumentalin integrating
-approach
for having little "ilt^ellectualor practical
nurr (i980) critique the syslems
payoff,"despitethiir havinggivenit'brajor" theoreticalstatus.While we canunderstand
we are inclined to side with
thi. ass"5-ent of thesetwo somewhatrelated approaches,
where
both the systemsand
family
therapy
field
of
from
the
positive
appraisals
several
ecological approaihes have had a major impact (Auerswald, 1987; Bogdan, 98q;
Guttman"1"986).On the other hand,to the extentthat the reviewsof Holman and Burr
(1980)were basedon the amountof empiricalresearchthat the ecosystemor ecological
ipproacheshad generatedin home economicsand family studiesor to the extent that
tfieseapproacheswere little more than terms and concepts,then HoLnan and Burr were
the contributionsof theseapproachesas minor.
correct in assessing
Although empirical studiesutilizing an ecologicalperspectiveare virtually absent
in the literature of home economicsand family studies,suchresearchefforts raisemore
questionsthen they answerabout the nature of studiesand researchprogramsthat are
icological in the theoretical sense. In our opinion, a major "problem" in the social,
behavioral, and family sciencesis the confusion that abounds in the theoretical,
methodological,and appliedaspectsof an ecologicalperspective.For example,a study
may havebeen considered"ecological"simply becausethe designincludedboth person
and environmentvariablesor becausethe statisticalanalyseswere multivariate and
utilized sophisticatedcausal models (i.e., path analysis,LISREL, etc.). There is
obviouslymuch work to be done in theseareasas efforts are made to utilize ecological
perspectivesin the disciplinesof home economicsand family studiesto bring clarity to
ind understandingof the complexand rapidly changingnatural and socialenvironments
in and around contemporaryfamilies.
174
Familv Science Review
August,1988
TE
srinulrclt
gisotq
Grrtnr, I
Ar fi
nc!4 iur I
6cl4 Bq
wccts (t!l
(c4; slts
langu4e t
in this 6dl
s]:teEs q
field hts
applicabiE
Ecologt it
Wcl
the hc
literarure
of conccl
fa-mily sl
Itb
had a sig
"ecologic
"life spao
psvcholo
of the pc
Lewin's c
envirotttt
(Touliat<
t9'79,19
ecologica
August,I
Ecologt in Farnily Therapy
One related area of family studies that has been very active in engaging in scholarly
discourse regarding both theoretical and applied issues of an ecological perspective is
family therapy. Auerswald has recently (1987) categorized these different therapeutic
and theoretical orientations into a "family systems" therapy and an "ecological systems
framework." Family systems therapy builds on systems thinking and general systems
theory (Minuchin, 1985; Mook, 1985; Robinson & Parkinson, 1985) and is really quite
different from the ecological systems framework (Auerswald, 1987). The ecological
systems framework (Auerswald, L968, L97'J-,L985; Keeney, 1979; Keeney & Sprenkle,
1982; Wedemeyer, 1986) takes as its basis a fundamentally different view of the world
(or epistemology) that emphasizes the cybernetic and information theory informed
evolutionary insights of Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979), those highly influenced by him
(Dell, 1982; Haley, 1971; Hoffman, 1,981;Jackson, 1965; Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo,
Cecchin, & Prata, 1980;) and more recently, the growing literature of New Science (see
Auerswald, 1987; Dell, 1985; Doherty, 1986).
These different orientations to the usage of ecology and systems thinking have
stimulated much debate regarding the relation of theory and the philosophical arena of
episternologt to the clinical practices of family therapy (Allman, 1982; Dell, 1982;
Guttman, 1986; Keeney & Sprenkle, 1982; Massey, 1986; Wedemeyer, L986). Keeney
and Sprenkle (1982) have proposed an epistemology that integrates reductionistic and
holistic perspectives of the family and its members into an "ecosystemic epistemology."
At this point in time, we can see, through work being done in the family therapy
field just how possible it is to integrate ecological and holistic concepts in a particular
field. Bogdan (1984), Dell (1979), de Shazer (1982), Keeney and Sprenkle (1982),
Weeks (1986), and others have attempted to clarify different views of similar concepts
(e.g., systems, ecosystem, contextual, homeostasis, dialectics) that are part of the
language in the family therapy field. It is encouragr''g and exemplary to see that many
in this field have taken the initiative to confront the conceptual issuesinhslsaf within the
systems,ecological, and ecosystemsperspectives. In our assessment,the family therapy
field has (so far) produced the most useftrl information regarding the critique and
applicabiliry of systems and ecological perspectives to the study of the family"
Ecologt in Life-Span Human Development
We have primarily focused on the precursors to current ecological perspectives in
the home economics and family studies disciplines and family therapy. But in the
literature that focuses on the developing individual across the life-span there is a variefy
of conceptual studies that have had a major impact in the current ecological focus in
family studies.
It is evident that the legacy of Kurt Lewin (1935, 1951), a gestalt psychologist, has
had a significant impact on two separate and distinct disciplines both of which claim an
"ecological" perspective. Basically, Lewin's theory (which included terminology such as
"life space" and "field of forces") was derived from his interests in social and personality
psychology and the field of perception. His theory stated that behavior was a function
of the person and the person's perceived experienced environment (Cartwright, 1979).
Lewin's emphasis on environmenlai setthgs and the person's perceived experience of the
environment as crucial factors in human development had a profound influence
(Touliatos & Compton, L983) on the later works of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1977a,1977b,
1979,1986) and Roger Barker (1968) who was a key figure in the development of an
eco Iogical p sychologt.
August, 1988
Family Science Review
r75
For the purposes of this paper, the work of Roger Barker and those who were
influenced by his ecological psychology are peripheral, but they should be mentioned
because of their impact on other related areas of ecological studies. Because of Barker's
(1963) interest in the objective multiple "behavior settings" in which people's behavior
took place, much of his rnfluence was felt by other psychologistswho had interests in the
community, and larger savirsnment. Rudolf Moos (L973, 1979; Insel & Moos, 1974;
Moos & Insel, 1974) ysss insfluqrental in establishing social ecologt (also, see Binder,
Stokols, & Catalano, 1975) with mental health issues in an ecological perspective and
people's interactions with their physical and social environments as major concerns.
Jams5 Kelly (1966, 1987; Vincent & Trickett, 1983; Trickett, Kelly, & Vincent, 1985) has
developed an ecological metaphor that he and his colleagues have used to pursue their
interests in studying and conceptualizing changes and interventions at the community
level. Kelly utilizes a strong ecological perspective as it applies to the evolution and
Edwin Willems (1973, L977) has used a strong
development of communities.
behavioristic orientation towards behavior settings and the environment to develop an
eco-behavioral analysis or behavioral ecologt approach. Many of these perspectives
overlap considerably with the fields of enviro.-ental and communily psychology.
Because Lewin's (1935) theories had emphasized the "close interconnection and
isomorphism between the structure of the person and of the situation", Bronfenbrenner
(1977b,1979) formulated a conception of the ecological environment that was embedded
in another region, and so on, like a set of Russian dolls nested inside each other. The
key to Bronfenbrenner's approach was his belief that the understanding of human
development had to go beyond the immediate behavior setting (Holahan & Spearly,
1980) and direct observation of behavior in experiments of past studies which had
utilized artificial environments to try to explain developmental behavior. This led
Bronfenbrenner (L977b, 1-979)to strongly recommend an emphasis on the "ecological
validity'' of research studies which emphasized the assessment of individuals within
naturalistic settings versus laboratory settings which had little to do with the child's
everyday world. Bronfenbrenner (1977a) saw the need for understanding the aspects of
the environments beyond the immediate situation containing the individual. This led him
to develop an ecologt of huntan development (1977a,197Tb, L979). The ecology of
human development was dehned as:
ff
fl- d fi
dJ
dll
-bl-
br;
H
-4
F{
eflt
jfi
drt
Et
-E
*l
Grcc.t
& Rcc*,:
.r#
l#
Lr
;dt
Ht
br
hr
H
b
(I
...the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation, throughout
the lifespan, between a growing organis6 and the changlng immediate
environments in which it lives, as this process is affected by relations sfolaining
within and between these immediate settings, as well as the larger social
contexts; both formal and informal, in which the settings are embedded.
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 51a)
The ecological environment was conceptually differentiated initially into four
systems (microsystem, mesosytem, ecosystem, and macrosystem) by Bronfenbrenner
(I977b). He acknowledges that he borrowed his circumjacent systems from a typology
used by Orville Brim (1975) that was not specifically ecological in its origin or use.
Bronfenbrenner (1986) later added the chronosystem to his other four systems. These
systems were used to indicate successivelevels of contextual settings that would enable
research to focus on interrelationships between the developing person and changing
surrounding situations (Scarr, Weinberg, & Levine, 1986).
Bronfenbrenner's (L977b; 1979) ecological framework for understanding human
developr"ent (i.e., microsystem, mesosystem,etc.) has been utilized by many scholars to
organizs the vast array of theoretical and empirical studiesfor a variety phenomena that
affect both individuals and family systems. For example, Garbarino (L977) has utilized
L76
Family Science Review
August,1988
-rl
-
c
-r.-t
dl
r-,
I
FttlTd
-E1;5
hH:
AET
Ats. Y
4
Aar.:
Bronfenbrenner's(1977b)ecologicalfrr-ework to understandthe factors relatine to
child maltreatment(see also Belsky,1980)and to social environmentsof children"and
their families (Garbarino,1982).
Alhoggl the word "ecologrc-aJ"
hasbeenusedto describethe emphasisin life-span
researchof the mutual relationshipsbetweenchildren and families and their u*iou,
contexts(sociocultural;natural,etc.), similar perspectivesalso are containedwithin the
competingterminologyor paradigmof contutualism (Pepper,1942)especiallyas it has
been interpreted by Feathermanand Lerner (1985). In i contextual'worldlview,the
focusis upon the developingindividualas reactorand actor within the contextsin which
the person inhabits. With the_synthesis
of many similar perspectivesand conceptsin
developmentalpsychologyand sociology there e-erged a growing interest in the
interactionsbetweenthe developingperson and variois cont6xtsacioss the life-span
(Stevens-Long,L984). The momentumcontainedwithin this growing interest reac|ed
a "critical mass"and was inlluential in the developmentof sEveral-fine quality serial
publicationswhich have capturedin a comprehensivemanner the dynamil of'theory,
research,a"a-lPp[e{ issuesin.ft-.pdevelopment.[For represenladvepublications,
see Baltes,1978;Baltes& Brim Lg7g,tgg}, tggz, tgg3, 1gg4;Baltesa'snaie, rsz:;
!ul!"1 Featherman,& Lerner, i.986,in press;Baltes, Reese,& Nesselroaae,plz;
callahan & Mccluskey, 1983;Datan & Ginsberg,L975;Datan & Reese, 1977;Datan',
Greene,& Reese,1986;Goulet & Baltes,1970;Mccluskey & Reese,19g4;Nesielroade
& Reese,1973;Turner & Reese,1980.1
Lerner and Busch-Rossnagel(1981) argued that this growth of research and
conceptualwork illustrated that a paradigmshift had occur.Jd in the field of human
developmentand in many parts of the social and behavioralsciences. They furthir
proposedthat this dynamicinteractionalorientationallowedresearchersto understand
family interactionsfrom a new perspective:
Sinceit is the family unit that typicallyprovidesthe immediatesocialconte4
for anynewmemberof society,t[e child-familyinterfaceis of primary
y aly attempt to undersjandthe reciprocalrelationshipsu-o.tg the"oo*o
various
levels of nlalysis described. In short, the family is-the maior mediator
betweensocial and historical changeon the one hand, and biocultural and
ontogeneticghgnge,on the other. Thus, the dynamicinteractionsbetweena
developingchild and his.or her changingfamiiy becomes,as we argued,the
core concernof socialscientistsin this era of intellectualiransition.-(Lerner
& SPenisl,1978,P. 13)
One of the excitingfeaturesof-thisqo*ing areaof researchis that it is likely to be
one of the few areasil family studiesthat utif,zes
$pects of.behaviorqtecotog, (e.g.,
1982;Lamb, pleck, charnov, & Livine, L9g7;Lancaster,altma"-n,
!*9
{ G_oldberg,
Rossi, & Sherrod, 1987). Given the heavy usage of bioecology'scommunity and
population ecologyand ecosystem-s
ecologyin ho'n'eeconomics,f]mily studi;;j;iit
therapy, and human ecology,it should bE interestingto iee how weil the ecologicJl
perspectivesused in human developmentintegratJ insights from bioecorogy"u"J
behavioralecology.
REFERENCES
a! luryan a!frirc,
washingtonpress.
f]9xan!9r'^R.L1979).Darwitivn
legttle: Universityofpnnc;ptei
park,'i., & Schmidt,
Allee, W. C., Emerson,
A. 8., park,O.,
K. (1949i.
of animat
ecologt. Philadelphia: Saunders.
August, 1988
Family Science Review
r77
Process
'
Allman, L. R. (1982).The aestheticpreference:Overcomingthe pragmaticenot ' Fantilv
21,43-56.
of the
Andr#s, M" p., Bubolz,M. M., & paolucci,B. (1930)"An ecologicalapproachto study
Review,3,29-49.
&
Fanily
famtly. Maniage
Funily Prccess'7,202-215.
vs. ecological_approach.
A,rersnaid,E. H. f1968). Inierdisciplinary
Fanily Process,I0,
persPective'
the
ecologital
and
Families,^chanfe,
ff.
n.
er"i""JO,
ifSZf).
263-280.
l-12.'.
euerswat4 E. H. (1985). Thinking about thinking in family therapy. Family Process'24'
Family
research.
and
theraPy
family
in
confusion
euersratO, e. ff. ifS3i). Episteirological
Process,26,317'330'
and behavior,Vol. 1. Nerv York: Academic
Bafteq i. B" 60.y. 1UZS;. Lrfe-spandevelopment
Press.
pq'chologt: Penonalitlt
Baltes, P. B., & Schaie,K W. (Eds.). (L973). Life+pan developmental
and socializarton Ne$r York: Academic Press'
pq'cholog':
Baltes, P- B., Reese,H. W., & Nesselroade,J. R (1977). Lif2slan developmental
Inttoductionto rcseatchmethods. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole'
and bchsvior,vol. 2. New
Baltes,P. 8., & Brim, o. G., Jr. (Eds.).(1979). Life-spandevelopment
York: AcademicPress.
and bchavior,Vol. 3. New
Baltes,i. B., & Brim, O. G., Jr. (Eds.).(1980). Life-spandevelopment
Press'
York: Academic
and behaiu, Vol. 4. New
Baltes,P. B., & Brim, o. G., Jr. (Eds.).(1982). Life-spandevelopment
Press.
York: Academic
and bchaiq. Vol' 5' New
Baltes,P. B., & Brim, O. G., Jr. (Eds.).(1933). Lrfe-spandevelopment
York: AcademicPress.
and fuhaiq' vol. 6. New
Baltes,P. 8., & Brim, o. G., Jr. (Eds.).(1984). Life-spandevelopment
York: AcademicPress.
Baltes, P. B,, Featherman,D. L', & Lerner, R. M. (Eds')' (1986)' Lifc'ryr daclopment and
behaior, Vol. 7. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum'
and
Baltes,P. B. Featherman,D. L', & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.). (in press)' L;fc'gt @ncnt
behavior,Vol. 8. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Barash,D. P. (1982). Sociobiologyand behavior. New York: Els€vir'
Barkerj n. C. itS6S). Ecological-psychologt:Conceptsand methds lo dyutg dtc cnritonment
of human behavior. Palo Alto, CA: StanfordUniversiryPress
Batelon, G. (lgi}). Stepsto an ecologtof mind. New York: BallanrineBoe.
unity. Na, York . E P. D.nooBateson,C" (tlZS). UUa ana natwe: A. necessary
at
Belck, l.i. (19b5,J;n. Shapingrhe field-human ecolory,a critical scicnca _Prpcr_prcsented
the Beatrice PaolucciSymlosium: ShapingDestiny Through Evcryda-vUfc' Eas Lansing'
Michigan.
ffiogrst,35,
Belsky,J.-(19S0).Child maltrearment:An ecologicalintegrarion..ltuiln
320-335.
Bertalanfff, L. von (1950).The theory of open systemsin physicsand ldo8', _kbe,_3, !-29.
Ycafirck
Spls
Bertalanfry,t. von liSOZj. Generalsystemitheory-A critical rerriry. M
of the Societyfor GenemlSystemsResearch,7, l-2t.
theory: Foundations,detzlqro4
ryEcaaluas. New
BertalanfS', |-. von (fS6S). Geneml systems
York: Braziller.
Binder,A., Stokols,D., & Catalano,R. (1975).The frameworkand perspccircr d tcial ecoloS'.
5, 2942.
Man-EnvironmentSystems,
Bogdan,J. L. (1984).fdmity organizationas an ecologrof ideas: An alterntivc ro 6c rcification
of family systems.Family Ptocess,?3,375-388"
Boulding,K. E. (1973). Ecodynamics:A new theoryof societalewluaoa. Bcrtcrlt Hills: Sage.
Bdm, o: G., Jr. (197t" Macro-structuralinJluenceson child dwelopmcor rd lE need for
cirildhoodsocialindicators.Atneican Joumal of Onhoprychiatn,15.51652rBronfenbrenner,IJ.(1977a). The ecolory of human dorelopmentin reuocPA ud-propeo.
In H. McGurk (Ed"), Ecotogicalfacnn in human development(pp 3712t6)- Ncv York:
North-Holland"
Bronfenbrenner,U. (1977b).Toward an experimentalecoiory of humandet'ctopoc Atacncan
Psychologist,32, 513-53L.
Expeimens fu nwc ad dcsign.
Bronfbnbrenner,U. (1979). Tle ecotogtof humanaevelopntent:
Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
178
Familv Science Ret/iew
Augus.. 1988
Bron:-ea
Fr{
Brorr;r, l
Ftan
Buboh, l
Ecqr
Buboh. ,
for p
Buboh. I
rn ho
for l
Buctlc.
Chrc
Burgess.
Callahar
.\'dr;
Capra- F
(Ed-)
(PP
Carrung
Catton '
socio
Clarke. I
Comptor
awt
Coryna
otd I
Datan l{
cns6
Daran N
otg
r
Datan I
Intal
Deacort
aWIt
Dell P I
2 l Jl
Dell P (
socta,
De Shuc
Dice. L
Arbq
Doherq-.
r6can
Duncan(Eda
Dunlap. I
ecolq
Easr. \{.
Edwards.
The t
oneil
Ecolo
Edwardr
9th c<
ron. I
EgenonEngelben
,\'iatun
Augusr. I
Bronfenbrenner,U_.(1986). Ecolo_ryof the familyasa conto$ for humandevelopment:Research
perspectives.D eveIopmental Prycholog, 22, 723-742.
Brown, M. M. (1984)., Home economici: proud past-promising future. rounnl of Horne
Economics,76, 48-54,n.
Bubolz,M. M., Eicher, 8., & Sontag,M. S. (1979).The humanecosystem.
lownal of Honte
I.
Economics,71, 28-3L.
Bubolz,M.M., & whiren, A. p. (1984).The famil_y
of the handicapped:An ecologicalmodel
for policy and practice. Family Relations,33,5-t2.
Bub.oq'M. M., & Sontag,M. S. (1986,October). humanecologicalperspectivefor integration
_A
in home economics.Paper_presented
at the SecondInternational-Conierenceof the Society
for Human Ecolory, Bar Harbor, Maine.
Buckley-W. F' (Ed.). (198). Modem systems
rcsearch
for the behavioralscientist:A sourcebook.
Chicago: Aldine.
Burgess,E. w. (1926).
personalities.TheFamity, 7, 3-9.
lre fam{_as I ullty of interacting
callahan, E. J., & Mccluskey,
Kr_A. (Eds.). (pq). -Liy"-spo, developmentalpryinoug,,
Nonnormativelife-events.NeqrYork: Academicpiess.
cup3,,f. (198r). The tao of physicsrevisited. A conversationwith Fritjof capra. In K. wilber
\Ed):,T!t: .lglogaphic pyldigll and other pamdarcs: Erytoing *i UaaAg edgeof science
(ptp.2l5-2A8). Boulder, CO: Shambhala"carnwighf D. s. (1979). Theoiesand modelsof penonatity. Dubuque,IA: w. c. Brown.
catton, w. R., Jr., & Dunlap,.R.-E. (1980). .4, new ecoiogicalparadigm for post-exuberant
sociolory. Ameican BehaviomlScientist.24, 1547.
clarke, R.
Ellen Swallow:The womanwhofounded ecologt. chicago: Follet.
compton, -(_1973)l
N., & Hall, o..(L972). Foundationsof iome rroro,16, orroni
A human ecorogt
apprcach. Minneapolis: Burgess.
Conyng',f. K. (1985). The counseiing
Helping people"and"environments
. Counseling
-ecologist:
and Human Development,18, l-I2.
Datan, N., Gr11berg,L. H., (Eds). (1975). Ltfe-spandevelopmental
psycholog: Normativelife
{
cnses. New York: Academicpress.
Datar, N., & Reese,H. w. (Eds). (!lll)._!-if1-span deveropmentar
psychorogt:Diarecticar
penpectiveson qeimental rcsearch.New yoik: Academici.
Datan, N., Greene,A. L., & R_"_:-:",_{.
y_._e3r.y. (1936). Life-spandevelopmental
psychologr:
Intergenemtionalrclations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deacon, R. E., & Firebaugh, F. M. (1981). Family rcsourcemanagement:pinciples and
applications.Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Oell'_P.F. (1982). Beyondhomeostasis:Toward a conceptof coherence.Family prccess,21.,
274I.
Dell, P. (1985). UnderstandingBatesonand Maturana: Toward a biologicalfoundationfor the
socialsciences.foumal of Marital and Farnily Thempy,Il, L_ZO.
Oe !|az-9r'-!. (1982). Someconceptualdistinaionsare more usefulthan others.Fanily process,
2r,7L-84.
Dice, L. R. (1955). Man's nafiite and natwe'sman: The ecologtof human communities.
Ann
Arbor, MI: Universityof MicNgan press.
Doherty, w. J. (1986).Quanta,quarls, and famites: Implicationsof quantumphysics
for family
research. Family Ptocess,ZS,249-,264.
DUITT'.o._D. (1959). Human ecoloryand populationstudies.In p. Hauser& o. D.
Duncan
(Eds.), r/re studvof oopulation
ffry.6lv7ie;. ciricago: universiry oi-hicago r."ss.
Dunlap-,R.. E. (198b)."raraalgmati;'.1*g" ii social s-ci"ncerFrom human e(emprions
ro an
ec_olo
gi_ ar
_cal-p ?!E:n. Am ei can BehavlomI Sci entist, 24, S-I4.
past,prcsent,andjururc. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
I1st, M. (!989). Home economics:
Edwards,c' H..(1985a). what.is.huma'ecolory? rn Eowaros,c. rr.
Human Ecorogt:
Go.l,
The intemction of man with his envircnmint, gth ed.
(A monograph for
6i. rr-iforientationto the academicdisciplineof humanecolory). lio.trit
gtoq DC: Schoolof Human
_ Ecologr, Howard Universiry.
Edw^a1ds'.c-..H.
(Ed.). (1985b)..Huryan ecologt: The intemctionof man with hisenvironment,
9th
monograph
for orientationto theicademic disciptineo'fhu.un ecologr). Washingt.{A
ton, DC: Schoolof Human Fcolory, Howard University.
Egenon, F.
(1977). Historyof ameican ecologt. New y'ork: Arno press.
_N.
E'ngelDerg'-J.'
& tsoyarsky,
L. L. (1979). The nonrybernericnature of ecosystems.
Arnencan
Naturalist, 11.4.3I7-324.
August, L988
Farnily Science Review
179
Featherman,D. L., & Lerner, R. M. (1985). Ontogenesisand sociogenesis:Problematicsfor
theory and researchabout dwelopment and socializationacrossthe lifespan. Ameican
SociologicalReview,50, 659{76.
Garbarino,-J. (1977). The human ecolory of child maltreatment: A conceptualmodel for
research.Ioumal of Maniageand the Fatnily,39,721-736'
Garbarino,J. (1982). Childrcnand families in tlrc socialenvirorunent.New York: Aldine.
conceptin_bi-ol9ryIn E. F. Moran (Ed.)'
Golley,F. B. (i984): Historical originsof the ecosystem
conceptin anthropologt(pp. 33a9). Boulder, CO: WestviewPress"
The ecosystem
psychologt:Researcltand
Goulet, L. R., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (1970).Life-spandevelopmental
theory. New York: AcademicPress.
and methodologicalproblemsin ecologicalanthropolo-ry.In"E.
Gross,D. R. (1984). Ecosystems
conceptin anthrcpologt@p.?53-263).Boulder,CO: Weswiew
F. Moran (na),rne ecosystem
Press.
Guttman, H. A. (1986). Epistemolory, systemstheories and the theory of family therapy.
Ameican foumal of Family Therapy,L4, L3:22.
A family
Haley,J. (197t). Famiiy rherapy:A radicalchange.In J. Haley (Ed.), Changingfamilies:
thempyreader(pp. n2-2Aq. New York: Grune & Stratton"
Hamilton, W. D" (1964).The geneticerrolutionof socialbehaviour,I and II. Iownal of Theorctical
Biologt,T, L-52"
Hawley,A. H. ltlaa;. Ecolory and human ecolory. SocialForces,22,398405.
Hawley,A. H. (1984). Sociologicalhumanecolory:Past,Present,and future. In M. Micklin & H.
M: Choldin (Eds.),Sociologicalhumanecologt: Contempomryissuesand applications(pp. l15). Boulder, CO: WesMew Press.
Hawley,A. H. (19M). Human ecologr: A theorcticalessay. Chieago: Universiry of Chicago
Press,
Hill, R., Katz, A. M., & Simpson,R. t. (1957). An inventoryof researchin marriageand family
behavior: A statementof objectivesand progress.Matriageand Fatnily Living, 19,89-92.
Hill, R., & Hansen,D. A. (1960)- The identificationof conceptualframeworksulilized in family
study. Maniageand Family Living,22,299'311.
Hoffman, L. (1981). Foundationsof family thempy. New York: BasicBooks.
Holahan,C. J., & Spearly,J. L. (1980). Copingand ecolory: An integrativemodelfor communiry
psycholory. Ameican foumal of Commwity Psychologt,8,671-685.
Holman, R. B., & Burr, W. R. (1980)" Beyond the beyond: The growth of family theoriesin
the 1970s.Ioumal of Maniageand the Fatnily, 42' 729'741.
Hook, C" N., & Paolucci,B. (1970). The family as an ecosystem.Ioumal of Home Economics,
62,315-318.
environments:Expandingthe scopeof humanecoiory.
Insel,P. M., & Moos, R. H. Psychological
Ameican Psychologist,29, L79-188.
Jackson,D. D. (1965). The study of the family. FatnilyPrccess,4, 1-20.
?3+287.
orist? Ameican Narurulist,118,
Jordan,C. F. (1981). Do ecorystems
Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the fanily: Toward a theoN of fatnilt- Ptuess. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keeney,B. P. (1979). EcosystemicepistemolognAn alternativeparadigmfor diagnosis.Fanilv
Process,L8, ll7-129.
Keeney,B. P, & Sprenkle,D. H. (1982).Ecosystemicepistemologn Critical implicationsfor the
aestheticsand pragmaticsof family therapy" Family Prccess,2l, l'I9.
Kelly, J. G. (1966). Ecoiogicalconstraintson mental health serrrices.Aneican Pachologist,2l,
535-539.
Kelly, J. G. (1987). An ecologicalparadigm: Defining mental healrhconsultationas a prorentive
service. Prcventionin Human Sertices,4, L-36.
Kilsdonk,A. G. (1983). Human ecolory: Meaning and usage. The Collegeof Human Ecologt
MonogmphSenes,No. 102. East Lansing,MI: Collegeof Human Ecologt, Vichigan State
Universiry.
Kitcher, P. (1985). Vaultingambition. MIT Press; Cambridge,MA.
Anteican Voalralist, ll'1,
Knight, R. L., & Swaney,D" P" (1981). In defenseof ecos.vstems.
99t-992.
Kormondy, E. J., & McCormick, J. F. (1981). Introduction. In E. J. Kormod.v & J F.
McCormick (Eds.), Handbook of contempomtydevelopmentsin world ecologr (pp. uii-nrii).
Westport,CT: GreenwoodPress.
Blad:well.
Krebs,J. R., & Davies,N. B. (1981). An irtroduction to behaviorulecologt. ffort
180
Family Science Review
Augus. 1988
Kuha. A
rctc^
Kuhn r|
Prcs
L'Abare
cntx
Fo;
T eks P
Cotl
t-amb. l
*.oh
(Ed
[.amb. I
Para
(Ed.
l-an-o(
Biotl
I as.i<.S
Jut
I ^o16. I
L^erocr,
dcrre
tttEl
krncr. l
Ca
6F
Prc{
Leri& I
Lo*trt I
Laronrl
\t€lu$
ed1
\lc&ucl
Srruf
\tclnrqi
{l _
\tassc.
3i!
\ta1'. R
\lcLsoa.
B"t!
\t jr*lirr.
In M
ryrt
}'{ jr+lia
.{a q
Cant
\[ier-lie.
otd t
\tijlcr. J.
i0. -s
\trnucfur
rhcrr
\look- B.
Psrrf
\Ioos. R
665.
\loor R
and I
Bass
Augus. I
Kuhn,.A. (L974)._Thelogic of social systems:A unifed, deductive,system-based
apprcachto socia!
science.San Francisco: Jossery-Bass.
Kuhn, A. (1975). Unifed socialscience:A system-based
intoducion Homewood,IL: Dorsev
Press.
L'Abate, L., & colondier, G. (1987). The emperorhas no clothes! Long live the emperor! A
critiqle 9f family_sys1e11
thinking and a reductionisticproposal. TEeAmeican ioumal of
Family Thempy,15, 19-33.
Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. (L902). Prcceedingsof the Foutth Annual
Confercnce.Lake Placid,NY.
Lamb, M. E., & Goldbe.g, A. (L982). The father-childrelationship:A synthesisof biological,
,W.
evolutionary,and socialperspectives.
In L. w. Hoffman, R. Gandelman,& H. R. Schifiman
(Eds.),Patenting Its causesand consequences
(pp. 55-73). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Lamb, M. 8., Pleck,J. H., charnov, E. L., & Lorine, J. A. (1987). A biosocialperspectiveon
paternal behavior and involvement.In J. B. Lancaster,J. Altmann, A. Rossi,-& L. Sherrod
lifespan: Biosocialpenpectives(pp. Ltt-142). Chicago: Aldine.
_ (Eds.),lalntjf7 across_the
Lancaster,J. B., Altmann, J., Rossi,A., & Sherrod,L. (Eds.).(L987).patentingaaoss-the
lifespan:
Biosocialpercpectives.Chicago: Aldine.
Lask, B. (1987). Cybernetico-epistobabble,
the emperor'snew clothes and other sacredcows.
Ioumal of Family Thempy, 9,207-215.
Lavlo, E. (1972). The systemsview of the wodd. New york: Braziller.
Lerner, R. M., & Spanier, G. B. (1978). A dynamic interactionalview of child and familv
development.In R. M. Lerner
* 9. B. Spanier(Eds.),Child influenceson maital andfamily
intemcion: A lrfe-spanpenpective(pp. l-22). Neu' york: Academic press.
Lerner, R. M., & Busch-Rossnagel,
N. A. (1981). Individualsasproducersof their darelopment:
Conceptualand empiricalbases.In R. M. Lerner & N. A. Buslh-Rossnagel
(Eds.),Individuals
asptoducerc of their development:A lrfe-spanperspective(pp. 1-36). N-ewyork: Academic
Press.
Lerrin, K. (1935). A dynatnictheoryof penonality. New york: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theoryin socialscience,selgctedtheorcticalpapers. New York: Harper.
R. C., Rose,S., & Kamin, L. (1934). Not in ow genr_s.Niw york: pantheon. '
f-gw_ontin,
Mccluskey,K. A., & Reese,H. w. (Eds.).(1984).Life-span1everopmental
psychologt:Histoical
and genemtionaleffects. New York: Academic press.
McTntosh,R..1. (-1?8-0).The backgroundand some current problems of theoretical ecolory.
Synthese,
43, 195-255.
Mclntosh, R. P' (198O. Pluralismin ecolory. Annual Reviewof Ecotogtand Systematics,
L8,3ZL41.
Masseyr!.. F. (1986).what/who is the family system?Ameicah Joumal of Famity Therapy,L4,
23-39.
Vuy, R. {., 9n! !ege1 J. (1986). Ideas in ecolory. Ameican Scientist,74,256267.
Melson, G. (1980). Family and envhonment: An ecosystem
penpective.' Minneapolis, MN;
Burgess.
Micldilt'-M.-(1984). The
p€rspectivein the socialsciences:A comparativeoverview.
In M. Micklin & H.Y..-ecglogrcal
Choldin (Edi), Sociologicalhuman ecologr:Contempomryissues
anc!
applications(pp. 51-90). Boulder, CO: WesMew press.
Micklin, M., & Choldin,H. M._(1981a).Researchandpoliry issuesin sociologicalhumanecolory:
An agendafor the future. In M. Micklin & H. M. eholdin 6os.;, Sociotfricaltuunanecolofi,:
_ contemporw issuesand applications(pp. a27-a3\. Boulder,cb: westview press.
Micklin, M., and Choldin,-H.Ma (801,) (1984b).Sociologicallrunianecologt:Contentpomtyissues
and applications.Boulder, CO: Westviewpress.
Mille,r,J. G.,(1955)' Toward a generaltheory for the behavioralsciences.Ameican psychologist,
10,513-531.
Minuchin, P (1?85)t Farniliesand individualdevelopment:Provocarionsfrom the field of family
fherapy. Child Development,56, 289-302.
Mogk' !. (1985).Phenomenology,
systemtheoryandfamily therapy.Joumalof Phenomenological
Psychologt,16, 1-11.
Mogll. H. (1973). Conceptuallzations
of humanenvironments.Ameican Psychotogist,
28, 652665.
Moos,R. H. (1979). Social-ecological
perspectives
on health. In G. Stone,F. cohen, N. E. Adler,
and Associates(Eds.),Healthpsycholog--Ahandbook(pp. 5B-5a|. 'SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.
August, 1988
Family Science Rer/iew
181
Moos, R. H., & Insel, P. M. (Eds.). (L974). Issuesin socialecologt: Human nilieus. Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford UniversityPress.
research.In E. F. Moran (Ed.),
Moran, E. F. (1984a). Limitations and advancesin ecosystems
conceptin anthrcpologr(pp. 3-32). Boulder, CO: WeswiewPress.
The ecosystem
conceptin anthropologt Boulder, CO: Weswiew
Moran, E. F. (Ed.). (1984b).The ecosystem
Press.
Nesselroade,J. R., & Reese, H. W. (Eds.). (L973). Life-span developmentalpg'cholog':
Methodological issues"New York Academic Press.
Nye, F. L, & Berardo,F. M. (Eds.). (1966). Emeryingconceprual
frameworlcsin family analysis,
New York: Macrnillan.
Odum, E. P. (1953)" Fundarnentalsof ecologt,1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Odum, E" P. (1968). Energr flow in ecorystems:A historical rwiew. Ameican Zoologist,8,
11-18.
Odum, H. T. (1971). Envitonment,power,and society.New York: Wiley-Interscience.
ecologt: An inaoduuion. New York: Wiley.
Odum, H. T. (1983). Systems
Paolucci,B. (1980). Evolution of human ecolory. Huntan Ecologt Forum, 10, 17-21.
Paolucci,B., Halt O. A., & Axinn, N. (1977). Fanily decisionmaking An ecorystemapprcaclt.
New York: Wiley.
Aneican Natumlisr,
Patten,B. C., & Odum, E. P. (1981). The cyberneticnature of ecosystems.
118,88G895.
Pepper,S. C. (1942). lilorld hypothesis:A srudyin evidence.Berkelq4 Universiryof California
Press.
Rice,A" S. (1966). An economicframeworkfor viewingthe family.In F. I. Nye & F. M. Berardo
(Eds.), Emerying concepwalframewo*s in family analysis (pp. 23-268). Ne*' York:
Macmillan.
Robinson,M., & Parkinson,L. (1985).A family systensapproachto conciliationin separation
and divorce.Ioumal of Family Thempy,7,357-377.
Sahlins,M. (1976). The useand abuseof biologt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Scarr, S., Weinberg, R. A., & Lwine, A. (1986). Undentandingdevelopnrcnt. New York:
Harcourt BraceJovanovich.
Selvini-Pala-zoli,M., Boscolo,L., Cecchin,G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing,circulariry,
neutrality Tfuee guidelinesfor the conductorof the session.Family Process,19,3-10.
ecologt. Stroudsburg,PA: Dowden,
Shugart,H. H., & O'Neiil, R. V. (Eds.). (L979). Systems
Hutchinson& Ross.
Smith, E. A. (1984). Anthropolory, wolutionary ecolory,and the explanatoryLimitationsof the
conceptin antltopologt (pp. 51-85).
ecorystemconcept. In E. F. Moran (Ed.), Theecosystem
Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.
Sontag,M. S., and Bubolz,M. M. (1985,April). A casestudyin the conductof human ecological
research:The family farm ecosystem.Paperpresentedat the First InternationalConference
of the Societyfor Human Ecolory, CollegePark, Maryland.
Southwood,T. R. E. (1980). Ecolory-A rnixture of pattern and probabilism. Synthese,43,
ttt-rz2.
Stauffer, R. C. (1957). Haeckel, Darwin, and ecology. Quanedy Review of Biologt,32, I38.l4y'.
Stwens-Long, J. (1984). Adult life: Developmental prccesses,2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Sutherland, J. W. (1975). Systems: Analysis, administmrion, and architectur". New York: Van
Nostrand Reiniold.
Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecologt, 76,
284-307.
Touliatos, J., & Compton, N. H. (1983). Apptoacltes to child study. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
Trickett, E. J., Kelly, J. G., & Vincent, T. A. (1985). The spirit of ecological inqutry in comnrunirv
research. In E. C. Susskind E. C., and D. C. Klein (Eds.), Conrnrwrity researclt: lv[etltods,
pamdigttts, and applicatiorrs (pp. 283-333). New York: Praeger.
Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/ Cummings.
Turner, R. R., & Reese, H. W. (Eds.). (L980). Life-span developntentalpncholog,: hten,entiott.
New York: Academic Press.
Vincent, T. A., & Trickett, E. J. (1983). Preventive interventions and the human conrext:
Ecological approaches to environmental assessmentand change. In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason,
J. N" Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Prcventivepsychologr: Theory, research utd prauice
(pp. 67-86). New York: Pergamon.
182
Family Science Rerriew
August,1988
Wedemr
ecost
Pror
Wedem
tead
Weeks. (
Willems
In J
ologt
Willems
beha
Willams
Anh
Wilson
Han'
Worster.
Unn
Young t
Adva
Young (
Stroq
Young (
,F
il
ll,,
ll'
ll
tl
L
August, 19
Wedemeyer,N. V. (1986,February). Teachingfamily life educationfrom the perspectiveof
ecosystemicepistemolory. Paper presentedat the Symposiumon Family Life Education,
Provo, Utah.
wedemeyer,N. v., & Grotevant, H. D. (1982).Mapping the family sysrem:A techniquefor
teachingfamily systemstheory concepts.Family Relatiotts,3l, 185-193.
Ig:kt, G:ry (198!): IndMdual-systemdialectic.Ameican Joumal of Fanrily Therapy,14, 5-L2.
Will-em!,E. P. (1973). BehaviorS_l_ecotoy experimentalanalysis:Courtihip is nbt enough.
Td
In J. R. Nesselroade,,& W, Reese(Eds.),Life-spandevelopntental
psyihotog,tMethScl4.
ologicalrssues(pp. t95-217). New York: Academicpress.
Will9rys' E. P. (L977). Behavioralecolory. In D. Stokols(Ed.), Penpectives
on envi.orunentand
belravion Theory,tesearxh,and application(pp. 39-68). New york: plenum.
Williamts,B. J. (1981). A critical review of models in sociobiolory. Annual Review of
An thropoIogt, 10, t63-I92.
wilson, E. o. (1975).sociobiologt: The New synthesis.cambridge, MA: Belknap press of
Harvard UniversityPress.
wo1s1er,D. (L977).Natwe'seconomy:A historyof ecologicalideas. cambridge,Ny: cambridge
University Press.
Young, G. L. (1:74). I.Ilman egol-oryas_an interdisciplinaryconcepr: A critical inquiry.
Advancesin EcologicatResearch,8,1-105.
Young, G. L. (19_83a).
Introduction. In G. L. Young @d.), oigins of human ecologt (pp. 1-9).
Stroudsburg,PA: HutchinsonRoss.
Young, G. L. (Ed.). (1983b). oigins of human ecologt. Stroudsburg,pA: HurchinsonRoss.
AreYouMoving?
AreYouPlanning
To?
To insureuninterrupted
deliveryof your copiesof
pleaseadviseus,givingbothyouroldand
thejournal,
newaddresses
including
zipcode.
F'AMILY SCIENCEREVIE}V
315 CampbellHall
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
August, 1988
43210
Family Science Review
ldJ