Research Paper Sample: Social Frameworks. Family/School Collaborative Relationship

Microsystems

The Microsystems refers to the layer closest to the child. It is the layer where the child interacts with the environment. It consists of the school, family, the childs peers and so forth. At the Microsystems level, bi-directional impacts have the greatest impact on a child with experts agreeing that these bi-directional effects are the strongest (Barnes-Mauthe et.al.,2015). However, the relationships at the external levels can as well affect the internal structures. As such, this environment remains as the childs opportunity of learning more about the surrounding.

Mesosystem

The Mesosystems connect at least two frameworks in which child, parent, and family life exist. Mesosystems links the relationship between the structures of the child's Microsystems and hence, it improves the childs relations with the environment. For instance, the association between the child's teacher and his folks, between his congregation and his neighborhood, each of them represent the Mesosystems

Exosystem

The exosystem describes the bigger social framework in which the child does not directly work. The structures in this layer affect the child's growth by interacting with some structure in his/her Microsystems (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). Examples of the exosystem are a Parent workplace calendars or group-based family resources. The child might not be involved directly at this level, but rather they do feel the positive or negative effects involved with the relations with their particular framework.

Macrosystem

The macrosystem is made out of social values, traditions, and laws. It refers to the general trends of belief system and relationships that describe a given social group or society (Binder et.al., 2013). Macrosystems can be utilized to portray the social or cultural setting of different societal groups, for example, social classes, ethnic groups, or religious partners. The macrosystem impacts what, how, when and where we handle our interactions.

Chronosystem

The chronosystem entails measuring the time as it relates to the child's environment. Elements of this framework can be either external, for example, the planning of a parent's demise, or internal, for example, the physiological changes that happen with the aging of the child. Family dynamics should be surrounded in the historical context as they happen within each framework.

Family/School Collaborative Relationship Practices Supporting Ecological Systems

Many families and collaborative school practices are performed in support of the ecological systems framework. The practices cover the five environmental systems that a child, parent, neighbors, and teachers behave. At every stage, the parent ensures that the childs Microsystems at all times impacts positively to the growth of the child. The parent should make sure that the child attends a good school where and the peers he interacts with are within the same age limit. The teacher will also ensure that the environment where the child will grow is right and safe for the child to develop well.

For a parent to make sure that the childs mesosystem is good, and then he/she has to make sure that the interactions between the family and the teachers go on well. The smooth relation between the two will make sure that the childs needs are well catered for in a timely manner. Also, the parent has to put in place mechanisms where the childs peers are interacting well with the child and the family since a healthy childs social relationship will positively impact the childs social skills as he grows up (Binder et.al., 2013). The childs exosystem is also critical, and as a result, the parent should put in place ways of always being available for the child especially if the parent works for long hours at the workplace. A child who does not have the constant connection with the parent will develop bad habits, and therefore, the parent should put mechanisms of finding ways to spend more time with the family.

Elements of Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory refers to a sociological and psychological perspective that clarifies social stability and change as a procedure of negotiated transactions between parties. Social exchange theory outlines that human relationships are shaped by the utilization of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the examination of alternatives. Social exchange theory highlights a large number of the assumptions which are found in structuralism and choice theory. Similarly, it is utilized much of the time in the business world to suggest a two-sided, commonly unexpected and remunerating process including an exchange or transactions.

Interdependence and self-interest are main elements of social exchange. The two elements are the essential types of interactions when at least two actors have something of significant worth to each other, and they need to choose whether to exchange and in what quantity. Homans utilizes the idea of individualism to clarify the process of exchange. To him, the importance of individual self-interest is a blend of economic and psychological needs. Satisfying self-interest is within the economic domain of the social exchange theory where rivalry and greed are usual. Self-interest is positive thing; when self-interest is identified, it will go about as the controlling power of interpersonal relationships for the advancement of the two parties' self-interest (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). Mutual interdependence is an important problem in social behavior. As such, the results of the efforts of the parties involved depend on complementary and interactive systems.

Social exchange theory sees the exchange as a social conduct that may bring about both economic and social results. Social Exchange Theory has been by and large examined by comparing human relations with the marketplace. The investigation of the theory from the microeconomic point of view is ascribed to Blau. Under his point of view, each is trying to augment his wins (Binder et.al., 2013). Blau outlined that once this idea is comprehended, it is conceivable to watch social exchange all over the place, in market relations, as well as in other social relations like friendships. Social exchange process brings fulfillment when individuals get reasonable returns for their expenditures. Neoclassic economic theory sees the actor as dealing not with another actor but rather with a market and fundamental parameters, for example, marketing cost (PerryJenkins & Wadsworth, 2017). Unlike the economic exchange, the components of social exchange vary and cannot be lessened to one quantitative exchange rate.

Family/School Collaborative Relationship Practices Supporting Ecological Systems

Different family and collaborative school practices follow the social exchange framework. The context has been noted in intimate relationships, in particular, the decision-making in relationships (PerryJenkins & Wadsworth, 2017). In essence, the partner with more resources usually has more power. Also, partners who are least dependent on the relationship will have greater power and hence less dependent on the relationship.

Families depend on each other in every situation they encounter in their life. Social exchanges are characterized by inter-dependence and due to that, the majority of familys exhibit that characteristic. Families practice commitment and trust in their relationships, and as a result, it has strengthened its relationship. Families interactions over time depending on the level of attraction and consequently, families practice ways of maintaining the appeal to a particular relationship.

References

Barnes-Mauthe, M., Gray, S. A., Arita, S., Lynham, J., & Leung, P. (2015). What determines social capital in a socialecological system? Insights from a network perspective. Environmental management, 55(2), 392-410.

Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4).

McGinnis, M., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2).

PerryJenkins, M., & Wadsworth, S. M. (2017). Work and Family Research and Theory: Review and Analysis From an Ecological Perspective. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(2), 219-237.