The name is absent

The importance of context

Cook et al. (2002) note the distinctions between a context’s structural features (distal
factors) and its more micro-level processes (proximal processes). Structural features
of the neighbourhood include, for example, neighbourhood socio-economic status and
racial composition, while process takes account of neighbourhood social cohesion and
social control, aspects of the interactions between community members (see also
Sampson et al., 1997).

In addition, the key characteristics of neighbourhoods are in many cases the same
characteristics that matter in the home but assessed at the neighbourhood level, i.e.
factors such as local resources and neighbourhood beliefs and attitudes. The
difference in level makes the nature of the links different, but many if not all the key
characteristics are the same. Similarly, the proximal processes include the same issues
of discipline and cognitive stimulation as at the family level but at a local level in
terms of multi-faceted relations between individuals in complex communities.

Moreover, while the interactions between contexts are crucial they can also be
modelled in this framework. Cook et al. (op cit) also investigated the interconnectivity
across social contexts. The authors considered the influence of four developmental
contexts; the nuclear family, neighbourhoods, schools and peers, taking into account
the interactions between these contexts. Effects were generally cumulative across the
nine outcomes studied so that each good context promoted healthier development and
thus may have provided some buffering effects against poor contexts, but no
combination of contexts implied a special degree of protection. Rather, each context
produced particular effects some having stronger or unique links to some outcomes.
Families tended to show greatest influence on changes in participation in conventional
out of wedlock activities, lack of misbehaviour and positive self-image;
neighbourhoods were most often associated with school attendance and participation
in social activities; peers were more potent in influencing negative social behaviour,
such as less acting out and drug use; schools led to positive changes in attendance,
academic performance and participation in conventional out of school activities. No
single, individual context was dominant on all outcomes. Moreover, contexts overlap
and a given context can operate as either a risk factor or a protective factor depending
on its characteristics.

It is also important to acknowledge that the effects of different social contexts vary
with the particular characteristics of the child. For example, relations within a
neighbourhood change considerably with age and so influences on a young child are
very different than for an adolescent. Handler et al. (1995), for example, suggest that
as children age, community-based organisations seem increasingly less relevant
making it ever more difficult to keep them attached to the groups wanting to serve
them while concurrently some activities and areas seem both more dangerous and
exciting than earlier (Cook & Murphy, 1999).

Relationship between family and neighbourhood contexts

Given the importance of these other contexts, we now briefly consider the reciprocal
influences and relations between the family and other contexts, again taking the

37

<<   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   >>

More intriguing information