Drawing from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological development model, Petersen &
Govender (2010) provide a further conceptualisation for guiding mental health promotion and prevention interventions in scarce resource contexts. This conceptualisation identifies key points of intervention utilised to enhance school connectedness within the HPS framework as in this study. In this section, the researcher firstly begins by highlighting the points of intervention within this framework to allow the reader an understanding of this how this study was located.
Secondly, in operationalising the ecological approach, concepts such as reciprocal determinism and social capital are discussed to give the reader an understanding of the outcomes the researcher wanted to achieve in this study.
Petersen and Govenders (2010) adapted model is utilised as this model highlights the points of intervention that facilitated the process of enhancing school connectedness.
This framework mirrors the four ecological levels of influence identified earlier:
within the intrapersonal system (individual level), within the microsystem (interpersonal level), within the group/cultural system or organised system
90
interventions are concerned with facilitating community and societal level change, harnessing group processes as the starting point for initiating change from the grass roots level.
For the purposes of this study though, due to accessibility, interventions were not developed to involve parents at the school community level nor the policy system level. Interventions were developed to impact behaviour within the school environment. It was therefore thought appropriate to involve key role players (teachers, managers, learners) directly responsible for influencing behaviour in the school to explore the protective influence of relationships, systems and structures in the school environment. Implications for addressing the policy level are however discussed as part of the recommendations emanating from the study. Interventions were developed to impact levels listed below.
3.4.1 Intrapersonal Level
The intrapersonal level encompasses the development of individual characteristics in preventing adolescents engaging in high risk behaviour. The scope for integrating this level acknowledges the role schools can play in developing behavioural and emotional competence in adolescence and equipping young people for adult life. The focus on this level is strengthening the personal influences or assets that a person brings to a situation such as coping skills and cognitive abilities (Petersen &
Govender, 2010). Interventions at this level focus on strengthening the self-efficacy a person brings to bear on a situation. Self efficacy is indicated to be central to a number of health promotion models, including the Health Belief Model (Becker,
91
1974), Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986), Ajzen’s theory of unplanned behaviour (1991), and the theory of triadic influence (Flay & Petraitis, 1994).
3.4.2 Interpersonal Level
The interpersonal level is concerned with strengthening the protective influence of relationships with significant others. Interventions at this level are aimed at increasing social support within the context of microsystems (Petersen & Govender, 2010). This can occur firstly through psycho-education and training of significant others in the microsystem system to provide support. Secondly, through providing people with information on the benefits of social support and how to develop socially supportive relationships, interventions can encourage people to develop and maintain relationships that provide social support (Petersen & Govender, 2010). Lastly, interventions can focus on developing new socially supportive relationships for people at risk. Petersen & Govender (2010) identify mentorship programmes, peer advisor groups, whereby people who live in the same community as the people at risk are trained to provide advice, assistance and referrals (Breinbauer & Maddaleno, 2005).
3.4.3 Community Level
Petersen and Govender (2010) indicate that while promoting the influence of individual and groups can build resilience through strengthening the resources on which a person can draw in their immediate social environment, a focus on inserting critical consciousness theory at the community level can provide a mechanism for facilitating more distal protective influences at a structural and cultural/social normative level. Campbell & MacPhail (2002). Petersen and Govender (2010)
92
indicate that mental health promotion interventions need to harness the social bonding that occurs within networks and groups to promote the process of conscientisation, as suggested by Campbell and MacPhail (2002). The process of conscientisation enables group members to exercise agency in relation to their existing social or cultural differences (Patel, 2005). Freire (1993) identified that two processes are involved in consciousness raising. The first is the development of a critical consciousness.
Through critically analysing their problems, group members are able to develop a critical consciousness. Freire (1993) argues that this a form of psychological and intellectual empowerment, whereby members become invested in the joint production of meaning that can serve as an ideological critique and a catalyst for social transformation. Freire (1993) noted a second process, that of social action. Through the development of a collective critical consciousness, group members are more likely to be able to collectively engage in actions to challenge the material bases of ill health at community and structural levels (Freire, 1993).
Within the ecological systemic understanding three different points of intervention will be utilised in this study : within the intrapersonal system to strengthen the assets a person brings to the situation; within the microsystem (interpersonal level interventions) to strengthen the protective influences of relationships with significant others; community school group systems which, from within a competency- enhancement approach have a two pronged effect of promoting change at a proximal community level, as well as at more distal socio-cultural and structural level.
93
COMMUNITY LEVEL (Social capital) emerges from interactions and shared norms that are social, external to the individual.
Result in high levels of reciprocity, trust, solidarity acts to bind groups.
Figure 4: Ecological levels of influence (adapted from Petersen & Govender, 2010, p.32)
3.4.4 Reciprocal determinism
The Social Cognitive or Learning Theory according to Albert Bandura (1974) emphasized how cognitive, behavioural, personal, and environmental factors interact to determine motivation and behaviour. Bandura (1974) believed that human function was a result of the interaction of all three of these factors. In Social Learning theory, causal processes are conceptualised in terms of reciprocal determinism. Reciprocal determinism is proposed as a basic analytic principle for analysing psychosocial
INTERPERSONAL LEVEL (Social Support theory) include teachers, peers, managers that provide social identity, support and role
identification.
INTRAPERSONAL LEVEL – (Goal setting, Self Regulation theory and the Challenge Model) includes individual characteristics that influence behaviour such as knowledge, competencies, social and emotional skills, motivation.
future orientation
94
phenomena at the level of interpersonal development, interpersonal transactions, and interactive functioning of organisational and social systems (Bandura, 1974).
At the intrapersonal level, people’s conceptions of influence, what they perceived and do, and their conceptions are in turn altered by the effects of their actions and the observed consequences accruing to others (Bandura, 1977). At the interpersonal level, behaviour and how people reciprocally determine each other’s actions is highlighted (Bandura et al., 1960). At this level, reciprocal processes involve cognition as well as action. At the broader societal level, reciprocal processes are reflected in the interdependence of organisational elements, social subsystems, and transactional relations (Bandura, 1973; Keohane & Nye, 1977). Here the matters of interest are the patterns of interdependence between systems, the criteria and means used for gauging systematic performances, the mechanisms that exist for exercising reciprocal influence, and the conditions that alter the degree and type of reciprocal control that one system can exert on another.
Bandura (1973) analysed behaviour thus in terms of reciprocal determinism. He indicated that the term is used to signify the production of effects by events, rather than in the doctrinal sense that actions are completely determined by a prior sequence of causes independent of the individual. Further he contends that because of the complexity of interacting factors, events produce effects probabilistically rather than inevitably (Bandura, 1973). He highlights the fact that in transactions with the environment, people are not simply reactors to external stimuli and there is the notion that people can exercise some influence over their own behaviour and change their environment (Bandura, 1973).
95
According to Bandura (1994, 1997) a person’s attitudes, abilities and cognitive skills comprise what is known as the self- system. The self-system has been identified to strongly influence the power a person has to face challenges competently in the environment and the choices a person is likely to make (Bandura, 1973). Performance and motivation are in part determined by how effective people believe they can be (Bandura, 1973). The self-system thus comprises the following listed below:
Self-Observation – Can be used to assess one’s progress toward goal attainment as well as motivates behavioural change
Self-Evaluation – Compares an individual’s current performance with a desired performance or goal
Self-Reaction – Reaction to one’s performance can be a motivating if progress is deemed acceptable, leading to a feeling of self-efficacy with regards to continuing and will be motivate towards the achievement of their goal.
Self -Efficacy – Refers to people’s judgments about their capability to perform particular tasks
According to Bandura (1973) what is known about reciprocal causation, is that behaviour can be influenced both by the environment and the person/self. Each of the three variables : environment, person, and behaviour all influence the others.
From the perspective of reciprocal determinism, the common practice of searching for the ultimate environment cause of behaviour is argued to be an idle exercise because, in an interactional process, one and the same event can be a stimulus, a response, or an environmental reinforce, depending on where in the sequence the analysis arbitrarily begins (Bandura, 1973).
96
Bandura’s (1973) social cognitive or learning theory stressed the importance of observational learning, initiation and modelling. His theory integrated a continuous interaction between behaviours, cognitions and the environment (Bandura, 1973).
Wood & Bandura (1989) indicated that academic performances (behavioural factors) are influenced by how the students themselves are affected (cognitive factors) and by the school organisational structures (environmental factors). According to Bandura (1973), in reciprocal causation, behaviour can be influenced by both the environment and the person. Each of these three variables: environment, person, behaviour thus influence the others.
3.4.5 Social capital
Social capital is regarded as a feature of social relationships in a school community that provides the building blocks for connectedness. Accumulation of social capital has been shown to lead to an elimination or reduction in social conflict and the presence of systems that promote conflict management whereby processes for resolving disputes involve investigation and/or discussion (Kawachi & Berkmann, 2000).
Social capital which is seen to emerge from social structures has been described as a resource that resides in the relationships that people have with each other, and that individuals within a social structure can draw upon to achieve certain actions (Kawachi & Berkmann, 2000; Veenstra, 2005). It has been described as “features of social organization, such as networks, norms and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 35), enabling people to act
97
collectively (Woolcock, 2001). The World Bank (2001) also indicated that for young people, schools are characterized as social organisations that are uniquely suited to a wide range of interventions needed to promote positive health outcome through enhancing social capital. Onyx and Bullen (2000) indicate that the building blocks of social capital in most models include : trust, engagement and connection, collaborative action, shared identity, shared values and aspirations. Moore (1999) indicates that social capital provides an opportunity for young people to be seen as active agents, who shape the structures and practices around them.
In the measurement of social capital one can differentiate between structural and cognitive social capital. Structural social capital reflects the connectedness of individuals within a given community (participation in organisations and networks etc.), while cognitive social capital taps into the feelings of a sense of community (perceptions of reciprocity, norms, and trust etc). Because of the multi-component nature of social capital different indicators assessing the relationship to school connectedness is noted. Indicators such as school belonging, school membership, school attachment are often referred to in school connectedness. Harpham et al., (2002) argues that because of the complexity of measurement of these social capital indicators both quantitative and qualitative measures need to be used when evaluating outcomes.
Research indicates that through strengthening school connectedness, one would also be strengthening the potential of the school to have a protective influence in terms of mental health, the engagement of high risk behaviours, motivation and academic outcomes. It would also enhance learners help seeking behavior to access mental health resources/psychological services at the broader level.
98
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4. Outline of research design
The purpose of the following chapter is to provide an outline of the research design.
In exploring the effects of the pilot study intervention, programme evaluation (Bhana and Govender, 2010) was deemed appropriate. In this chapter, the researcher presents an outline of the different methodologies used in the different phases. Add on here The use of a mixed method, qualitative (action research, semi-structured, focus group interviews, document data sources) and quantitative (quasi-experimental research) is drawn upon to evaluate the efficacy of the pilot study intervention. The specific methods will be described in this chapter. The various phases of the study, the various outcome indicators and methodology to be used at each level are also discussed in this chapter.