Ecological Engagement Urie Bronfenbrenners Method to

Study Human Development

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/ecological-engagement-urie-bronfenbrenners-method-to
-study-human-development/

Click Download Now

Foreword to the International Edition by
Richard M. Lerner

Ecological Engagement is an invaluable scholarly example of the continuing soci-

etal importance and scientific utility of the scholarly contributions of Urie
Bronfenbrenner. Although I never earned a degree under the tutelage of Urie
Bronfenbrenner, I, most members of my generation of developmental scientists, and
certainly the contributors to Ecological Engagement are Urie’s students. His vision
for using developmental science to describe, explain, and optimize the lives of
diverse people, as they lived and developed within the actual ecology of human
development, has become the fundamental frame for theory and research in the
study of the human life span.
Urie’s bioecological model was neither the first nor the only dynamic, relational
developmental systems-based conception of human development. Nevertheless, it
has—for now almost a half century—stood as the best known and most widely used
example of how coactions between an individual and the complex, nested, and inte-
grated systems within his or her ecological setting create the basic process of devel-
opment across life. This dynamic, relational process involves the specific individual
and the specific features of his or her context in mutually influential coactions across
time (the chronosystem) and place (the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-system).
The process-person-context-time (PPCT) conception is, of course, the core of the
bioecological model, but it is also a fundamental part of all dynamic, relational
models of human development. The fact that, at this writing, these models are at the
cutting-edge of developmental science is due in no small part to the power and per-
suasiveness of Urie’s scholarship.
The methodology of ecological engagement, which is explained and richly
empirically illustrated in this book, is a singularly significant extension of the bio-
ecological model. Indeed, in my view, it is a brilliant empirical instantiation of the
PPCT component of the model. In the conduct of good science, method derives
from theory; that is, the methodological tools selected for use by a researcher should
derive from the specific, theory-predicated questions being addressed. The bioeco-
logical model generates questions about the specifics of the mutually influential
individual-context relation, represented in many expressions of this conception as

vii
viii Foreword to the International Edition by Richard M. Lerner

individual context relations. These individual context relations are the process
in the PPCT framework.
Of course, the bioecological model goes well beyond a statement that the indi-
vidual and the context are fused in a dynamic relation across life. It was Urie’s
insight that the actual (ecologically valid) instantiation of this process required a
thorough understanding of a person’s specific attributes of individuality (the second
“P” in the PPCT conception) in concert with the specific attributes of his or her
context (the “C” in the PPCT conception), as this coaction changes across the levels
of the chronosystem (the “T” in the PPCT conception). Therefore, to describe,
explain, and optimize the trajectories of development for any individual—and in
particular, the diverse and often underserved and marginalized children whose ecol-
ogies are marked by adversity and ongoing challenges to not only their health and
well-being but, as well, to their very existence—methods must be used to under-
stand their individual, contextual, and developmental specificity.
The singular and historically important contribution of ecological engagement
methodology is that it provides a clear and compellingly rationalized set of proce-
dures that, together, assure that questions derived from the use of the PPCT concep-
tion can be addressed systematically and comprehensively with the scientific rigor
that Urie insisted must be used to persuade scientific colleagues and policy-makers
and practitioners that the information derived from research was valid internally and
externally in regard to the ecology of the individuals participating in the research.
The methodology triangulates observations across multiple dimensions: for exam-
ple, quantitative and qualitative, explanatory research and intervention research,
predesigned and formatively researcher participant designed procedures, and—
perhaps most superordinate—researcher-generated definitions of the research pro-
cess and participant and community-/institutional-generated definitions of the
research process.
As documented across the chapters of this book, the methods of ecological
engagement are complex and time-consuming, given that genuine and continued
embeddedness of the research team within the ecology of participants must be
undertaken to create the trust and the ecological knowledge that provide the founda-
tion for the collaborative research practitioner procedures that are emblematic of
the method. Yet, without embracing complexity and having the commitment to the
time needed to create valid engagement, meaningful data cannot be derived from
this methodology. However, as documented through each chapter of this unique
and, frankly, inspiring book, the readers will realize the remarkable contributions to
enhancing the lives of individuals and contexts that can be made by informed and
systematic use of this methodology.
Indeed, the chapters of Ecological Engagement constitute the ongoing building
blocks for the growth of a living monument to the highest aspirations of the career
contributions of Urie Bronfenbrenner. During the last decade of Urie’s life, I had the
privilege of serving as the editor of three of his last major works: his 1998 chapter
and 2006 chapter (a chapter completed posthumously with the help of Pam and
Urie’s wife, Liese) with Pamela Morris in the fifth and sixth editions, respectively,
of the Handbook of Child Psychology and Urie’s final book, published just before
Foreword to the International Edition by Richard M. Lerner ix

his passing in 2005, Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on

Human Development. In my conclusion to the foreword I wrote for this book, I said
that:
Urie Bronfenbrenner has, across more than six decades of singularly prolific and significant
scholarship, given the world a gift of hope and power. We may remain hopeful that we can,
through our own energies and active contributions to our world, optimize our lives and the
lives of others with whom we share the fragile ecology supporting our existence. If we
pursue the path of science and program and policy applications to which Bronfenbrenner’s
vision has directed us, we can as well sustain a humane and health-promoting ecology for
future generations. Such a contribution may be Urie Bronfenbrenner’s greatest legacy. It
may be the frame with which human decency and social justice may prosper. (p. xxiv)

Ecological engagement methodology is the scientific means through which

Urie’s legacy can be furthered. If the steps in this methodology becomes increas-
ingly embraced within developmental science, and if it is increasingly used to
understand and enhance the individual context relations of children and adoles-
cents whose opportunities for thriving, life successes, and even life itself are chal-
lenged because of their specific ecological circumstances, social justice will be
significantly furthered. The contributors to this book have illuminated the path
developmental science can take to make such a contribution to the youth of the
world. They have shown why the star that is Urie Bronfenbrenner continues to light
our path forward.

Richard M. Lerner
Institute for Applied Research
in Youth Development, Tufts University
Medford, MA, USA
Foreword to the International Edition by
Stephen F. Hamilton and Mary Agnes Hamilton

This book is a fitting tribute to Urie Bronfenbrenner and an indication of his endur-
ing legacy. Having known him as a colleague and friend, we are certain that he
would have appreciated the authors’ close attention to his theory, their commitment
to testing it empirically, and their willingness to do so in complicated real-world
contexts. They are continuing to modify his ideas, as he did himself. Their method
of ecological engagement is a means of investigating processes and contexts, a chal-
lenge he did not address explicitly, though his 1970 book, Two Worlds of Childhood:
U.S. and U.S.S.R., contains examples of formal and informal observations of child
rearing in the Soviet Union.
Urie was motivated to conduct rigorous research and theorizing by concern for
fostering human development for every person everywhere but especially for mar-
ginalized children, youth, and families. He readily shared his findings and his ideas
with policy-makers and practitioners, not just other scholars. He demonstrated his
respect for them and their work by explaining his ideas to them in their complexity
rather than simplifying them. The method of Ecological Engagement explicated in
this book employs the tools of science to delve deeply into people’s daily lives,
yielding the kind of understanding that can ground action to make those lives
better.
It is also fitting that the chapter authors live and work outside the United States.
As an immigrant who grew up speaking two languages and acquired at least two
more later in life, Urie was a world citizen who was knowledgeable about and con-
nected with people around the globe. His theory embraces influences on and pro-
cesses of human development that are universal but also those that are specific to
particular countries and cultures.
Finally, it is appropriate that the foreword was written by a former student. He
was a legendary teacher who indelibly affected generations of undergraduate and
graduate students.

Cornell University Stephen F. Hamilton

Ithaca, NY, USA Mary Agnes Hamilton

xi
Foreword to the Brazilian Edition

It was a real pleasure to be invited to write the foreword for this book. In some ways,
this invitation captures well two distinct, but connected, parts of my life. I went to
the United States, in 1981, in order to do my PhD with Urie Bronfenbrenner and
started publishing on his theory there in the mid-1990s (Tudge, Gray, & Hogan,
1997) and in Brazil soon thereafter (Tudge, 2008; Tudge et al., 1999, 2000). My
writing on Bronfenbrenner’s theory occurred at about the same time that I met
Silvia Koller, in 1995, when I was first invited to talk at the PPG Psychology at the
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and have given many presenta-
tions on Bronfenbrenner’s theory, as well as teaching a semester-long class on his
theory, over the following years. This invitation thus nicely connects these two parts
of my life.
Although Bronfenbrenner’s theory, in one or other of its stages of development,
has been very widely cited by scholars, surprisingly, little has been written about the
theory, its development, or the methods that should be used to test the theory (Rosa
& Tudge, 2013; Tudge, 2013). So it was with great satisfaction that I read the vari-
ous chapters in this book. The first two chapters are reprints of papers that were
originally published in 2003 and 2008, both in Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. The
first, by Cecconello and Koller, does an excellent job of describing Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory, and the second, by Eschiletti-Prati and her colleagues, aims to
show how the theory can be applied in research practice. The remaining chapters of
the book are mostly devoted to studies that used the method (ecological engage-
ment) that Dr. Koller, her colleagues, and students devised in order to put
Bronfenbrenner’s theory into practice. These studies were conducted in various
parts of Brazil, from its southernmost city (Rio Grande) to an Amazonian river com-
munity close to Belém, and in Angola.
As Eschiletti-Prati and her colleagues point out, Bronfenbrenner’s theory went
through many changes from the 1970s, when he first started developing it, until his
death in 2005. In fact, three distinct periods can be identified (Rosa & Tudge, 2013),
and scholars wishing to use the theory should either rely on the “mature” version of
the theory or be explicit about the fact that they are drawing on concepts from one
or other of the two earlier stages in the theory’s development. Failure to do that is

xiii
xiv Foreword to the Brazilian Edition

likely to lead to theoretical incoherence if not a total misuse of the theory (Tudge,
Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009; Tudge et al., 2016). It is thus very helpful that
Cecconello and Koller devote so much time to describing the mature, bioecological
theory, with its focus on the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model. They draw
extensively on Bronfenbrenner’s writings from the 1990s, which is important, given
that Bronfenbrenner first described his theory (which he sometimes termed a
“model”) as “bioecological” in 1993 and discussed the PPCT model from 1994
onwards. It is very helpful to the readers that they draw so extensively on these
original sources; it is always dangerous for researchers to rely on “authorities”
(myself included) for their understanding of a theory rather than use the theorist’s
own words.
Although at first glance this model seems very complex, it is, in fact, rather
straightforward. Proximal processes (the “engines of development”) are the natu-
rally occurring everyday activities in which developing individuals are involved.
These, as Eschiletti-Prati et al. make clear, need to be the focus of attention for
researchers trying to apply bioecological theory. Proximal processes vary depend-
ing on the characteristics of the individuals involved (the “person” of the PPCT
model) and by the context and need to be studied over time. As Cecconello and
Koller point out, Bronfenbrenner described three types of person characteristics and
four “systems” of context. Bronfenbrenner made clear, however, primarily in the
course of discussing others’ research, that one can test the PPCT model by examin-
ing the ways in which proximal processes are influenced by variations in a single
person characteristic and by examining one contextual variation. In many of his
later publications (e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1999; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) describing the bioecological theory and the
PPCT model, he used Drillien’s (1964) study to illustrate the ways in which differ-
ences in the child’s birth weight (the person characteristic of interest) and differ-
ences in the family’s social class (the context characteristic of interest) jointly
influenced mother-child proximal processes, leading to different outcomes for the
children 2 years later. In other words, despite the apparent complexity of the theory,
it does not require researchers to do the impossible in applying the theory (see
Tudge et al., 2009).
Most of the authors in this book use Bronfenbrenner’s theory as their starting
point, but they focus primarily on the method that is at the heart of this volume—
ecological insertion. This method involves conducting a study in context, with the
team of researchers “inserted” into the environment over a period long enough to
understand the problems and issues of the individuals being studied. The most
important aspect of the method is the fact that the researchers are explicitly viewed
as part of the system, a system including all of the people involved (researchers,
community members, and the participants of primary interest), and the context
itself. As authors of two of the chapters point out, this method has a lot of similarity
with ethnographic approaches involving participant observation (Bucher-­
Maluschke) and systems theory (Pontes et al.). Eschiletti-Prati and her colleagues,
however, argue that the main difference between this ecological insertion and eth-
nographic approaches is the explicit attention given to proximal processes, the
Foreword to the Brazilian Edition xv

p­ erson, the context, and time. In other words, they make a connection between the
method of ecological insertion and Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory.
The most creative part of this connection is treating interactions among the
research team and the other individuals in the context as the proximal processes of
interest. Eschiletti-Prati and her colleagues draw on Bronfenbrenner’s writing about
ecological validity from the 1970s as the supporting concept and argue, rightly I
think, that although Bronfenbrenner never returned to the concept in his later writ-
ings, it is well worthy of greater consideration. The concept refers to the fact that
there needs to be congruence between what participants in a study experience in
their context (whether home or laboratory context) and what the researchers assume
the participants are experiencing. How better to ensure that congruence than by
members of the research team spending a great deal of time in the context, inter-
viewing community members as well as the individuals who are the focus of the
study, writing field notes about their perceptions, sharing those perceptions with
others in the team, and so on? The goal, clearly, of the method is to understand the
context and the individuals within it as thoroughly as possible. Some type of invis-
ible “fly on the wall” approach is obviously not what is required, and the method is
explicit that the research team is influencing and being influenced by the community
and its inhabitants.
The chapters in the second section of the book do an excellent job of describing
the method of ecological insertion that Koller and her collaborators developed and
showing how they applied that method in their research. They all note, for example,
that the method is time-intensive. For example, Morais and her colleagues describe
the way in which the research team spent 7 months, averaging two visits each week,
with at-risk children and adolescents and workers at two different institutions help-
ing at-risk youth in Porto Alegre. Rosa and her colleagues describe the way in which
the ecological insertion of her research group took place, also over 7 months, involv-
ing 30 visits to a children’s shelter in Espírito Santo. Siqueira and Dell’Aglio
describe the 9 months in which their research team spent with five adolescents fol-
lowing their reunion with their families after a period in an institution for troubled
adolescents.
Both Silva and colleagues and Mendes describe the work that their group of
researchers spent in a river community of the island of Marajó, near Belém. Their
work appears the most traditionally ethnographic (given that ethnography is the
method primarily associated with cultural anthropology). Silva and her colleagues
went to the island every 2 months, spending 10 days each time in the community.
Mendes spent 3 years meeting with and observing children from the same commu-
nity and their teachers. As with the best ethnographic studies, ecological insertion
requires this type of time investment, as the researchers aim to understand the com-
munity, the individuals of interest, and establish connections between themselves
and the families, children, adolescents, and youth workers.
The difficulty is not simply with the investment of time, necessary though it is.
In all of the studies reported on in this book, the researchers are reaching out to
children and adolescents who are vulnerable to many risks, including often living on
the streets, physical and sexual abuse, drugs and prostitution, and a lack of so many
xvi Foreword to the Brazilian Edition

resources. Trying to build trust is not at all easy and, as Vega and Paludo discovered,
may not be possible. Their research team spent 5 months getting to know the com-
munity and talking with youth workers at shelters in an attempt to understand and
help adolescents being sexually exploited in Rio Grande. The team only managed
five interviews with adolescents, and at times, team members felt themselves to be
in serious danger. A different difficulty was noted by Sacco and Koller, describing
the first author’s attempt to do focal group interviews with six children in Angola.
As the children’s lessons took place outside, gathering a small group under a tree
quickly led to the group being surrounded by other children.
As a way of showing that the method of ecological insertion can be employed in
a variety of different ways, Souza and her colleagues describe using the method to
create a program in human rights education with adolescents. They argue that proxi-
mal processes between the research group and 72 adolescents in Porto Alegre, with
whom they met twice monthly for 5 months, created a new microsystem. Another
interesting use of the method is described by Krum and Bandeira. The researcher
first built contacts with a well-respected leader of the military police in a small city
about 300 km north of Porto Alegre that had recently experienced a tornado. These
initial contacts facilitated two sessions of focal group and individual interviews with
ten of the affected inhabitants.
One important part of the method which certainly deserves attention is the care-
ful way in which field notes are meticulously written by all members of the research
team, and discussed among members of the group, as a way to help the team mem-
bers understand the local context better, raise questions about issues that need to be
discussed more, reveal biases that have to be confronted, and so on. The field notes
should include impressions of the context, doubts, and questions about the initial
encounters with community members, informal observations, feelings about the
ways in which the interviews or meetings went, and much more. Aquino-Morais
and her colleagues do a particularly nice job of showing would-be researchers why
these field notes are so important and how to use them appropriately. However, the
authors of many of the other chapters also explain well the use of field notes with
the method of ecological insertion.
In summary, then, the authors of this book do an exceptional job discussing the
roots of the method of ecological engagement, showing how it can be used in
research, and pointing out many of the problems that are bound to be encountered
when trying to understand and to help children, adolescents, and their families liv-
ing in situations of vulnerability and risk. The book deserves to be read widely.

Jonathan Tudge
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC, USA
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Foreword to the Brazilian Edition xvii

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and opera-

tional models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life
span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental per-
spective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical mod-
els of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development.
In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.
Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley.
Drillien, C. M. (1964). Growth and development of the prematurely born infant. Edinburgh: E. &
S. Livingston.
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5(6), 243–258.
Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). A teoria de Urie Bronfenbrenner: Uma teoria contextualista? In L. V.
C. Moreira & A. M. A. Carvalho (Eds.), Família e educação: Olhares da psicologia (pp. 209–
231). São Paulo: Paulinas.
Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner. In H. Montgomery (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies
on line: Childhood studies. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
OBO/9780199791231-0112
Tudge, J. R. H., Doucet, F., Odero, D., Tammeveski, P., Lee, S., Meltsas, M., et al. (1999).
Desenvolvimento infantil em contexto cultural: O impacto do engajamento de pré-escolares
em atividades do cotidiano familiar. Interfaces: Revista de Psicologia, 2(1), 23–32.
Tudge, J. R. H., Gray, J., & Hogan, D. (1997). Ecological perspectives in human development: A
comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner. In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, & J. Valsiner (Eds.),
Comparisons in human development: Understanding time and context (pp. 72–105). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tudge, J. R. H., Hayes, S., Doucet, F., Odero, D., Kulakova, N., Tammeveski, P., et al. (2000).
Parents’ participation in cultural practices with their preschoolers: A cross-cultural study of
everyday activities. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 16(1), 1–11.
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. (2009). The uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and
Review, 1(4), 198–210.
Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., et al. (2016). Still
misused after all these years? A re-evaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological
theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 8, 427–445. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jftr.12165
Acknowledgments

This is the international edition of a book previously published in Portuguese with

the title Inserção ecológica: Um método de estudo do desenvolvimento humano
(Pearson Clinical Brasil, 2016). This international edition is a revised and expanded
edition of the original publication in Portuguese and includes additional chapters
which were not included in the Brazilian edition.

xix
Contents

Part I Ecological Engagement

  1 Ecological Engagement: Promotion of Knowledge Production����������    3
Júlia Sursis Nobre Ferro Bucher-Maluschke
  2 Ecological Engagement in the Community:
A Methodological Proposal for the Study of Families at Risk ������������   13
Alessandra Cecconello and Silvia Helena Koller
  3 Revisiting the Ecological Engagement: New Aspects
and New Research Examples������������������������������������������������������������������   29
Laíssa Eschiletti Prati, Maria Clara P. de Paula Couto,
Michele Poletto, Normanda Araujo de Morais,
Simone dos Santos Paludo, and Silvia Helena Koller
  4 Ecological Engagement: Systematic Review
on the Use of the Research Method��������������������������������������������������������   49
Vinicius Coscioni, Hivana Raelcia Rosa da Fonseca,
and Sílvia Helena Koller

Part II Ecological Engagement in Different Contexts

  5 Ecological Engagement in Research on Trajectories
of Adolescent Life in Situations of Social Vulnerability:
Identifying Risk and Protective Factors������������������������������������������������   69
Normanda Araujo de Morais, Sílvia Helena Koller,
and Marcela Raffaelli
  6 Ecological Engagement in a Children’s Shelter
in Espírito Santo, Brazil��������������������������������������������������������������������������   87
Edinete Maria Rosa, Célia Regina Rangel Nascimento,
Ana Paula dos Santos, Carla Ramos da Silva Melo,
and Monica Rocha de Souza Nogueira

xxi
xxii Contents

  7 Ecological Engagement in Institutional Care Context:

An Experience Report with Adolescents in Pernambuco�������������������� 103
Larissa Morélia Sá Vieira Macêdo, Kalina Vanderlei Silva,
Débora Maria dos Santos Pinheiro de Lima,
and Lygia Maria Pereira da Silva
  8 Ecological Engagement in Studying Adolescents
Undergoing the Process of Family Reunification���������������������������������� 123
Aline Cardoso Siqueira and Débora Dalbosco Dell’Aglio
  9 The School as a Development Context: An Ecological
Study in a Riverine Community on the Marajó Island������������������������ 143
Leila Said Assef Mendes and Fernando Augusto Ramos Pontes
10 Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents:
The Ecological Engagement as a Pathway to Research������������������������ 163
Luciana Barbosa da Silva Vega and Simone dos Santos Paludo
11 The Method in Context: Ecological Engagement in Angola���������������� 175
Airi Macias Sacco and Silvia Helena Koller
12 The Ecological Engagement Method and Its Application
on the Field of Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology �������������������� 183
Fernanda Menna Barreto Krum and Denise Ruschel Bandeira
13 Creating Ecological Contexts of Development
and Human Rights for Adolescents�������������������������������������������������������� 195
Ana Paula Lazzaretti de Souza, Luciana Dutra-Thomé,
Eva Diniz Bensaja dei Schiró, Camila de Aquino Morais,
and Silvia Helena Koller
14 Ecological Engagement and Educational Practices:
An Experience in the Context of a Public Policy
Implementation on the Protection of Children Victims
of Sexual Abuse and Ill-Treatment �������������������������������������������������������� 205
Jéssica Ortega Ventura, Natália Abido Valentini,
and Paola Biasoli Alves

Part III Possibilities of Theoretical-Methodological Dialogues

15 Analysis of the Familiar Functioning of Amazonian
Riverside Communities: Ecological Engagement, Naturalistic
Observations, and Use of Structured Situations ���������������������������������� 221
Simone Souza da Costa Silva, Fernando Augusto Ramos Pontes,
Sarah Daniele Baia da Silva, Daniele Castro Reis,
and Leila Said Assef Mendes
Contents xxiii

16 The Ecological Engagement, the Role of the Research

Group and the Collective Construction of Knowledge������������������������ 233
Fernando Augusto Ramos Pontes, Simone Souza da Costa Silva,
and Celina Maria Colino Magalhães
17 The Use of Field Journal in the Ecological Engagement Process�������� 247
Camila de Aquino Morais, Alexandra Borba,
and Silvia Helena Koller

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 261
 Part I
Ecological Engagement
Chapter 1
Ecological Engagement: Promotion
of Knowledge Production

Júlia Sursis Nobre Ferro Bucher-Maluschke

Psychology research seeks understanding of human phenomena on the intraper-

sonal and subjective plane as well as the interpersonal or interactional. Realizing
this this goal has become the primary challenge for researchers.
How does one capture a part of reality that escapes one’s immediate
perception?
In ancient Greece, pre-Socratic philosophers were well aware of the complexity
of apprehending reality. Some of their observations that have survived until the
present attest to their ability to discern the difficulties inherent in the search for
knowledge.
While Heraclitus emphasized the shifting character of reality: “You cannot step
into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on” (D12) p. 25;
Parmenides distinguishes the path of truth from the path of opinion. The fundamen-
tal distinction between the two paths is that, for him, on the path of truth, a man
allows himself to be guided by reason only, while on the other, the sense informa-
tion does not lead to the discovery of the truth (aletheia) and to certainty, dwelling
instead in the unstable realm of opinions (p. 21), indicating that our senses induce
illusions and that words are what determine reality but alert us nonetheless to the
fact of their deceitfulness.
With Socrates comes a change of focus from the search for knowledge search to
mankind, emphasizing to his disciples the necessity of knowing oneself.
Although ancient, these observations persist today and continue to challenge
researchers.
In our capacity as researchers, we pose two questions as a starting point:
–– How do we capture the truth or possible systems of truth?
–– How was the system we described generated?

J. S. N. F. Bucher-Maluschke (*)
Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 3

S. H. Koller et al. (eds.), Ecological Engagement,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27905-9_1
4 J. S. N. F. Bucher-Maluschke

It is in this vein that we will address ecological engagement as a possible path to

knowledge production that is as close as possible to reality.
Let’s look at some of the assumptions of ecological engagement.
The efforts of social scientists, psychologists, and anthropologists to achieve the
best possible understanding of the social, psychosocial, subjective, and intersubjec-
tive or relational dimensions inherent to the human being’s life experience are enor-
mous. One of the challenges pertains to the vocabulary used in scientific investigation.
For example, methodology and method are often confused, according to the descrip-
tions of those doing the research.
Potter (1996) differentiate methodology and method, defining them:
“…methodologies are perspectives on research; they set out a vision for what research is
and how it should be conducted. They are the connection between axioms and methods;
methods are tools – techniques of date gathering, techniques of analysis, and technics of
writing. Because it is a tool, a particular method can often be used by many different meth-
odologies (both qualitative and quantitative). Therefore, methodologies are at a more
abstract (or general) level than are methods. Methodology is like a strategy – or plan – for
achieving some goal; methods are the tactics that can be used to service the goals of the
methodology. In essence, methodologies provide the blueprints that prescribe how the tools
should be used. Those prescriptions can be traced to the axioms- beliefs about how research
should be conducted.” (p. 50).

This distinction is important as it clarifies two aspects in constant interaction

which are not, however, synonymous.
For years, in the human sciences, quantitative research has been developed under
the parameters of the natural sciences. Only quite recently has so-called qualitative
research enjoyed greater acceptance in academia.
It is important to remember that qualitative investigations start with the develop-
ment of case studies. Atkinson (1998) presents a life or oral story as “…a narrative
form that becomes a qualitative research method when it seeks to capture, to obtain
information about the subjective essence of a person’s entire life.” (p. 3).
Case studies are done in clinical psychology (Bucher-Maluschke, 2010), but it
was Freud who initiated this method of investigation, thereby contributing to the
development of psychoanalytic theory. Among the various case studies he per-
formed, the studies “Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of his Childhood,” published
in 1910, as well as “Psycho-Analytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a
Case of Paranoia” from 1911 are noteworthy. His studies were important milestones
for the development of psychoanalysis.
Since then, other case studies have been done using individual narratives as
much as primary documents. Allport (1942) elaborated tests about the development
of individuals based on this investigation method. Erikson analyzed Luther’s (1958)
and Gandhi’s (1969) lives. In 1975, Helm Stierlim published a study about Adolf
Hitler from his family’s perspective.
These are just a few examples of studies using people’s life histories, which deal
with development concepts that are important for the development of other research,
as, for example, occurs with the concepts of individual and family lifecycles as well
as the creation of other investigation techniques, such as the family genogram.