Conceptual Social Ecology

"Conceptual Social Ecology" was assembled after Social Ecology at UCI

celebrated its first 25 years of existence, and embarked upon its second 25
years. In an electronic format, "Conceptual Social Ecology" presents a number of
facets of Social Ecology: its current definition and basic assumptions, its founding
scientific presentations, its evolution as an organizational unit within the
University of California, Irvine, and its approach to research on contemporary
problems of the social and physical environments.
The principal conceptual authors of Social Ecology's original intellectual
foundations are Arnold Binder, Daniel Stokols, and Ray Catalano. The authors of
the distinctive definitions of Social Ecology are Daniel Stokols, Thomas Crawford
and Dave Taylor. Daniel Stokols identified the four assumptions of the social
ecology perspective, and the core principles of social ecological theory. He also
described the development of the ecological paradigm, and applied the social
ecological perspective to the problem of health promotion.
After more than a quarter-of-a-century of existence, Social Ecology's faculty is
decidedly multi-disciplinary. Its research is focused on problems in society as
envisioned by Arnold Binder's founding statement. The nature of the faculty has
made highly relevant the issue of how research is conducted by a multidisciplinary faculty and its collaborators. This circumstance has in turn made
relevant Patricia Rosenfield's distinctions between multidisciplinary,
interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research. Professor Stokols also
addressed this issue in the broader context of the future of interdisciplinarity in
the School of Social Ecology.
From its origins as the interdisciplinary program Arnold Binder founded in 1970,
Social Ecology was accorded status as a formal academic school at UCI in 1992.
The rationale for transformation in status and identity is captured in the section
on organizational development and the companion historical milestones of
development.
The selected bibliography of scientific Social Ecology was prepared by
Professor Stokols for an undergraduate seminar. The 25th Anniversary
Celebration is a special web version of an issue of UCI News which appeared in
1996 at the time that the School of Social Ecology dedicated its second major
building, Social Ecology II, and recognized the completion of its first 25 years.

The rationale for compiling "Conceptual Social Ecology" in electronic format is

to make more accessible its intellectual origins and historical development. The
original documents are widely dispersed, and most are not accessible
electronically. The principal intended audience are those graduate students and
faculty who are shaping Social Ecology's second 25 years.

John M. Whiteley
Professor of Social Ecology
February 1, 1999

Conceptual Social Ecology has the following sections:

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.

table of contents

CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS
FOUR ASSUMPTIONS OF THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY
PERSPECTIVE
CORE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL
THEORY
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM
FOUNDING SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS 19721975
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT UCI TRANSITION FROM DEVELOPING PROGRAM TO
ESTABLISHED SCHOOL 1988-1992
HISTORICAL MILESTONES OF DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION OF THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY
PERSPECTIVE
THE POTENTIAL OF TRANSDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH
25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
THE FUTURE OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN THE
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCIENTIFIC
SOCIAL ECOLOGY

SECTION I:
CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS
Introductory Statement by C. Ron Huff, Professor and Dean of the School
of Social Ecology
The School of Social Ecology is an interdisciplinary academic unit whose
scholarly research and instruction is informed by and contributes to knowledge in
the social, behavioral, legal, environmental, and health sciences. The School is
comprised of four departments: Criminology, Law and Society; Environmental
Analysis and Design; Psychology and Social Behavior; and Planning, Policy and
Design. Social Ecology faculty apply scientific methods to the study of a wide
array of recurring social, behavioral, and environmental problems. Among issues
of long-standing interest in the School are crime and justice in society, social
influences on human development over the life cycle, and the effects of the
physical environment on health and human behavior. While the field of ecology
focuses on the relationships between organisms and their environments, social
ecology is concerned with the relationships between human populations and their
environments.
Social Ecology's faculty is multidisciplinary, including psychologists with a variety
of specialties (e.g., developmental, social, environmental, and health
psychology); criminologists; sociologists; political scientists; lawyers; urban and
regional planners and economists; environmental health scientists; and program
evaluation experts. The School's research and teaching is distinguished by an
emphasis on the integration of the concepts and perspectives of these multiple
disciplines. This focus is based on the School's core belief that the analysis and
amelioration of complex societal problems requires interdisciplinary efforts.
Many Social Ecology faculty are involved in developing policies and interventions
directed toward improving the functioning of individuals, families and other
groups, organizations, institutions, and communities, while other faculty in the
School focus their efforts on the complex environmental issues confronting our
society. Social Ecology undergraduate students benefit from the multidisciplinary
instructional expertise of the School's faculty in the classroom and are afforded
opportunities to engage in field-based and laboratory-based learning, as well,
through the School's well-established and highly regarded field studies program
and its laboratories. Graduate students work closely with the faculty in the
classroom and in laboratories, as well as collaborating on important research
projects that enhance their research skills while advancing knowledge and
addressing important societal problems.

This presentation of contemporary definitions of social ecology is based upon

three primary sources: Bold Venture, a publication of the School of Social
Ecology which draws extensively on the insights of Daniel Stokols; Rediscovering
Social Ecology, a continuing graduate student initiative which began in the Spring
of 1997 to explore the roots of social ecology (the presentation here is by Dave
Taylor); and Social Ecology Is What Social Ecologists Do, a brief presentation by
Thomas Crawford, faculty convenor of the Rediscovering Social Ecology
seminar.
Social Ecology: A Bold Venture
Social Ecology is within the tradition in higher education of mission-oriented
teaching, research, and public service. The mission of social ecology is the
interdisciplinary analysis of complex problems of contemporary society which
occur in the social and physical environments. Interdisciplinary analysis is used
in the sense of the joining of talents by researchers from different intellectual
backgrounds. An interdisciplinary analysis results in the combining of diverse
areas of knowledge to create a broader view.
To facilitate a continuing interdisciplinary analysis of contemporary problems, the
faculty of the School of Social Ecology is multi-disciplinary. Included within the
faculty are professors originally trained in environmental design, law, philosophy,
environmental health science, political science, urban and regional planning,
program evaluation, sociology, and six branches of psychology: developmental,
clinical, health, social, environmental, and counseling.
Daniel Stokols defined Social Ecology's basic commitment as education and
research " that will help solve contemporary environmental and social problems"
through an approach which is simultaneously "multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary,
and societally relevant."
Rediscovering Social Ecology
Rediscovering Social Ecology is the designation of an initiative by graduate
students to examine the roots of social ecology. Dave Taylor offered the following
"working sense" of social ecology:

A Working Sense Of Social Ecology

The application of multiple levels and methods of analysis and theoretical
perspectives to social problems, recognizing the dynamic and active nature of
human-environment interactions and the social, historical, cultural and
institutional contexts of people's lives.

In amplifying the meaning of this basic definition, Taylor distinguished six

underlying principles of a social ecological analysis:

Six Underlying Principles of Social Ecology

* Identify a phenomenon as a social problem
* View the problem from multiple levels and methods of analysis
* Utilize and apply diverse theoretical perspectives
* Recognize human-environment interactions as dynamic and active
processes
* Consider the social, historical, cultural and institutional contexts of
people-environment relations
* Understand people's lives in an everyday sense
Multiple levels of analysis include the macro level, the micro level, and the meso level
applied, for example, to individuals, small groups, organizations, neighborhoods and
geographical regions. Multiple methods of analysis include both qualitative and
quantitative methods applied in laboratory and naturalistic settings.
This framework may include consideration of the notion of context:>
* Consider the social contexts of people's lives
Social networks
Support systems
* Consider the historical contexts of people's lives
Where we come from
Our collection of experiences
* Consider the cultural contexts of people's lives norms, values, expectations
* Consider the institutional contexts of people's lives
Interactions with schools, hospitals, churches
Prison systems
* Understand people's lives in an everyday sense

Notion of Fordism - everyone punched the same time clock and

worked for the same employer
Two addition components are embodied in Taylor's representation of social ecology:
diverse theoretical perspectives, and a conception of social and environmental problems
as dynamic and active processes.

Social Ecology Is What Social Ecologists Do

Thomas Crawford introduces a number of clarifying elaborations concerning the
meaning of social ecology. He notes what he calls "interesting complications"
associated with some of the terms used in a conceptual definition of social
ecology. As a starting point for addressing these "interesting complications," he
offered the following conceptual definition:
Social Ecology is an academic unit characterized by an
interdisciplinary approach to the study of social and environmental
problems. These problems are examined at multiple levels of
analysis, are viewed from an ecological perspective and involve a
systems theory analysis of interdependence.
Crawford proceeds to explore the "complications" associated with the term
"interdisciplinary," the phrase "environmental or social problem focus," and the
implications of his view of social ecology as a "natural category" with "fuzzy
boundaries."

In considering the meaning of the term "interdisciplinary," Crawford cites the

influential work by Christopher Jencks and David Riesman entitled The Academic
Revolution. Jencks and Riesman consider disciplines to be administrative
categories:
They are grouped together mainly because the men working in
them went through the same sort of graduate program and have
some residual feeling of common identity. A good deal of ingenuity
has, it is true, been devoted to the rationalization of these ad hoc
arrangements. Some of the resulting efforts to show that history,
biology, psychology, and so forth are really unified fields built
around certain underlying principles are quite brilliant and valuable.
But then so are some of the arguments made for regrouping sub
disciplines into new patterns.
Crawford's comment on this quote is that "even if we accept the view of
disciplinary rationales as contrived and arbitrary a good argument can be made
for increasing research at the boundaries of or between currently defined
disciplines." In Crawford's view, for which he credits social psychologist Donald

Campbell, such research within the traditional university is currently discouraged

by their disciplinary structure to the detriment of accumulating knowledge.

For the purposes of a definition of social ecology, Crawford defines

interdisciplinary as "studying a topic from the perspective of two or more
subdisciplines that involve different methods, theories, and research topics."
In discussing the phrase "environmental or social problem focus," Crawford
reminds us that social and environmental problems are "social constructs." As
social constructs, social and environmental problems convey an implicit message
that they represent some aspects of society which need to be improved.
Social ecology is not a term which is "precisely definable" in terms of a
"conjunction of attributes true of all members and of no non-members." Crawford
reminds us that today's basic research project that is part of Social Ecology may
be tomorrow's technology relevant to the solution of social or environmental
problems.

Social Ecology is for Crawford a "natural category" with "fuzzy boundaries."

Therefore, like other natural categories Social Ecology has a most typical or
characteristic "prototype":
"Like other natural categories Social Ecology has a most typical or
characteristic "prototype." Just as some colors in the category "red"
are more red than others, and some birds (e.g. robins, sparrows,
blue jays) are more bird-like than other birds (e.g. ostriches,or
penguins) so some of the research activities in this School are
more Social Ecological than others. It might be interesting to define
the prototype and/or see if we are in some agreement about the
prototypicality of different projects."
Advocating a multiplicity of methods and a plurality of perspective is a theme
common across the definitions provided by Daniel Stokols, Dave Taylor, and
Thomas Crawford. Crawford suggests a useful activity: Sharpening a definition of
what social ecology has been in its first 25 years by examining what social
ecologists actually do. This is possible by a scrutiny of faculty research interests
and some of their research groups, and a perusal of the topics of completed
Ph.D. dissertations.
table of contents

SECTION II:

FOUR ASSUMPTIONS OF THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY

PERSPECTIVE
The Social Ecology Perspective, according to Stokols (1992), is distinguished by
four assumptions:
Assumption 1: Multiple facets of both the physical
environment (for example, geography, architecture, and
technology) and the social environment are integral to a social
ecological analysis.
Applying Assumption One to health promotion, Stokols stated that the
promotion of well-being is of necessity "based on an understanding of the
dynamic interplay among diverse environmental and personal factors... (Stokols,
1992, p. 7)." This is in contrast to an analytical framework that focuses
"exclusively on environmental, biological, or behavioral factors (Stokols, 1992, p.
7)."
By way of elaboration, in Assumption One the health status of individuals and
groups "is influenced not only by environmental factors but also by a variety of
personal attributes, including genetic heritage, psychological dispositions, and
behavioral patterns (Stokols, 1992, p. 7)."
Assumption 2: The relative scale and complexity of
environments may be characterized in terms of a number of
components such as:
a. physical and social components,
b. objective (actual) or subjective (perceived) qualities,
and
c. scale or immediacy to individuals and groups
(Adapted from Stokols, 1992, p. 7)
In Assumption Two independent attributes of environments are relevant such as
lighting, temperature, noise, space arrangement or group size. Additionally
relevant are the "composite relationships among several features, as exemplified
by such constructs as behavior settings, person-environment fit, and social
climate (Stokols, 1992, p. 7)." These latter points are elaborated in a chapter on
"Conceptual Strategies of Environmental Psychology" in book edited by D.

Stokols and I. Altman Handbook of Environmental Psychology published by

Wiley in 1987.
Assumption 3: The Social ecological perspective incorporates
multiple levels of analysis and diverse methodologies.
The perspective in Assumption Three assumes that the effectiveness of an
intervention "can be enhanced significantly through the coordination of
individuals and groups acting at different levels... (Stokols, 1992, p. 7)."
In the area of health promotion, the multi-level aspect of the Third Assumption
is illustrated by family members who make efforts to improve their health
practices, the efforts of managers to shape organizational health policies, and the
activities of public health officials who direct community health services (Stokols,
1992, p. 7).
Assumption 4: The social ecological perspective incorporates
concepts from systems theory to take into account both the
interdependencies that exist among immediate and more
distant environments, and the dynamic interrelations between
people and their environments.
By way of illustration on the components of Assumption Four, when it is applied
to health promotion, Stokols (1992) drew attention to the following:
a. "people-environment transactions are characterized by
cycles of mutual influence, whereby the physical and social
features of settings directly influence their occupants'
health..." and,
b. "...concurrently the participants in settings modify the
healthfulness of their surroundings through their individual
and collective actions (Stokols, 1992, p. 8)."
The key idea in Assumption Four is the recurrent cycles of mutual influence
which are basic to understanding transactions between people and their
environments.
Another key idea in Assumption Four is the notion of levels of human
environments where some are more local and others are more distant but still
with immediate influence. An example provided by Stokols (1992) in the area of
health promotion is where state and national ordinances aimed at promoting
environmental quality and protecting public health directly influence the

occupational safety and health of community work settings.

table of contents

SECTION III:
CORE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL
THEORY
Stokols (1996) addressed the challenge of translating social ecological theory
into guidelines for community health programs. The result was the development
of a clearly specified theoretical foundation utilizing core principles of social
ecological theory. In the process of developing guidelines for community health
promotion, Stokols compared the key strengths and limitations of three distinct
and complementary perspectives on health promotion: behavior change,
environmental enhancement, and social ecological approaches. In this synopsis
of Professor Stokols' approach, the focus will be on core principles of social
ecology.
INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL THEORY
Social ecology is alternately conceived as an "overarching framework" or "set of
theoretical principles" which assist with understanding interrelationships: for example,
among diverse environmental and personal factors in human health and illness. This
focus on understanding interrelationships is in recognition of the compelling
circumstance that:
"...most public health challenges...are too complex to be understood
adequately from single levels of analysis and, instead, require more
comprehensive approaches that integrate psychologic, organizational,
cultural, community planning, and regulatory perspectives." (Stokols,
1996, p. 203)
In this conception of social ecology as assisting with understanding interrelationship
among complex phenomena, the term "ecology" refers to "the study of the relationship
between organisms and their environments (Stokols, 1996, p. 285)." There is attention to
the social, institutional, and cultural contexts of people-environment relations as well as
human ecology's emphasis on biologic processes and the geographic environment in
which they occur. The expanded emphasis on people -- environment relationships with
cultural, institutional, and social components is reflected in the core principles of the
social ecology paradigm.
Principle One: Multiple Dimensional Analysis

Environmental settings have multiple dimensions which influence the personenvironment interaction. Environmental settings may be analyzed ("ecological analysis")
from numerous perspectives which are relevant to health and well-being. Examples of
such multiple dimensions include social cohesion, emotional well-being, development
maturation, and physical health status.
Social ecology theory emphasizes "the importance of identifying various physical and
social conditions within environments that can affect occupants: physiologic, emotional,
and/or social well-being (p 289)." Emotional well-being may be influenced by the
perceived predictability, controllability, novelty, and symbolic values of environments.
Principle Two: Differential Dynamic Interplay
The emphasis is on interrelationships between personal and situational factors. This is in
contrast to an orientation which focuses exclusively on behavioral, biological, or
environmental factors. This approach recognizes that environmental factors may affect
people differently depending on such factors as personality, health practices, perceptions
of the controllability of the environment, and financial resources. In social ecological
research which incorporates differential dynamic interplay, the "level of congruence (or
compatibility) between people and their surroundings is viewed as an important predictor
of well-being..." (Stokols, 1996, p. 286).
Principle Three: Relevance of Systems Theory
Understanding the dynamic interaction between people and their environment requires
the application of such principles from systems theory as interdependence, deviation
amplification, homeostasis, and negative feedback.
This incorporation of systems theory facilitates the characterization of peopleenvironment transactions in terms of cycles of mutual influences. In such a
characterization, for example, physical and social settings both influence health, and the
participants may engage in individual or collective action to modify both the social and
the physical settings.
Principle Four: Interdependence of Environmental Conditions
This principle recognizes the importance of the interconnections between multiple
settings and life domains, and the close interlinkage between the social and physical
facets of those settings. By way of example, there can be independent effects and joint
effects on individuals from a wide range of social and physical aspects of settings.
Interdependencies exist among both immediate and distant environments.
A "core principle of social ecology is that the environmental contexts of human activity
function as dynamic systems. This systemic quality of settings is reflected in the
interdependencies between physical and social conditions within particular environments
and in the nested structure of multiple settings and life domains" (Stokols, 1996, p. 291).

Multiple settings affect participant well-being. It is important not to neglect

consideration of the links between the social and physical aspects of environments and
the joint influence of those multiple settings. In this context, "social ecological theory
emphasizes not only the interrelatedness of conditions within single settings but also the
links between multiple settings and life domains within the broader community" (Stokols,
1996, p. 292).
Principle Five: Inherent Interdisciplinarity
Social ecology analyses emphasize the integration of multiple levels of analysis (for
example macro level preventive strategies of public health and epidemiology with micro
level individual strategies from medicine) with diverse methodologies (epidemiological
analyses, environmental recordings, medical examinations, questionnaires, and
behavioral observations).
Interdisciplinary research in the area of health promotion is essential to the development
of comprehensive programs which "link the perspectives of medicine, public health, and
the behavioral and social sciences" (Stokols, 1996, p. 288).

Citation:

Stokols, D. (1996). "Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for

Community Health Promotion." American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4),
282-293.
table of contents

SECTION IV:
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOLOGICAL
PARADIGM
The field of social ecology can be contrasted with earlier versions of human
ecology. Human ecology gave greater attention to biological processes and the
geographic environment. An early statement of the principles of human ecology
is Hawley's (1950) book titled Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure.
This book reflects the roots of human ecology in the field of biology. Ecology itself
"pertains broadly to the interrelations between organisms and their environments
(Stokols, 1992, p. 7)."

A number of disciplines have contributed to the development of the ecological

paradigm as it is employed in the definition of social ecology. The ecological
paradigm contains contributions from disciplines with such diverse theoretical
frameworks as sociology, psychology, economics, and public health. It provides a
"general framework for understanding the nature of people's transactions with
their physical and sociocultural surroundings (Stokols, 1992, p. 7)."
Contributors to the development of the ecological paradigm as it is used in the
definition of social ecology include: R. Park's and E. Burgess' (1925) edited book
The City published by the University of Chicago Press, J. Cassell's (1964) article
"Social Science Theory as a Source of Hypotheses in Epidemiological Research"
which appeared in the American Journal of Public Health (Vol. 54, pp. 1482-87),
R. G. Barker's (1968) book Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for
Studying the Environment of Human Behavior which was published by the
Stanford University Press, A. RogersWarren's and S. F. Warren's (1977) edited book Ecological Perspectives in
Behavior Analysis published by the University Park Press, and R. Catalano's
(1979) book Health, Behavior, and the Community: An Ecological Perspective
published by Pergamon Press.
The ecological paradigm in the perspective of social ecology has an extended
lineage of development with contributors from a number of different disciplines.
The culmination of this period of development is that the "field of social ecology
gives greater attention to the social, institutional, and cultural contexts of peopleenvironment relations than did earlier versions of human ecology (Stokols, 1992,
p. 7.)"
table of contents

SECTION V:
FOUNDING SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS
1972-1975
A. THE FOUNDING VISION OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY
In "A New Context for Psychology: Social Ecology" Arnold Binder issued a
resounding challenge to the status quo of professional schools. In this
assessment, the missions of the academic enterprise of professional schools are
determined by their professional identities, not by innovation or addressing the
"social problems of the day" (Binder, 1972, p. 903). In this founding vision, and in
distinction from disciplinary-based education, Social Ecology is "broadly
interdisciplinary" including components from the biological and physical, as well

as the behavioral and social sciences.

ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

As an academic unit conceived with commitments to interdisciplinarity,

innovation, and research directly relevant to issues of public policy and social
problems, Social Ecology in this original conception represented a fundamental
challenge to the traditional disciplinary based organization of the modern
research university. Another difference between Social Ecology and more
traditionally based academic enterprises is being as committed to educating for
community-oriented jobs as it is committed to training research workers (Binder,
1972, p. 903).
PURPOSES OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY

What are the purposes of Social Ecology in this founding vision? In what was
later in its history characterized as a "bold vision", Social Ecology was conceived
and developed by Binder "for the purpose of providing direct interaction between
the intellectual life of the university and the recurring problems of the social and
physical environment" (Binder, 1972, p. 903).

NECESSITY FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARITY

The necessity for multidisciplinarity is rooted in the nature of human beings:

biological organisms in a cultural-physical environment. The number and
diversity of disciplines within the School of Social Ecology after a quarter-of-acentury of development has its roots in a goal of the founding curricula which was
aimed at "equipping students to attack and solve environmental problems"
(Binder, 1972, p. 904).
DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

"Environmental problems" were defined broadly to span social relationships (how

people relate to each other), the consequences of social heritage, and the

relationship of humans to the broader biological and physical environment. The

emphasis is on the nature of the interactive process between people and the
environment.

EDUCATING FOR RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP

Regardless of a students' ultimate career objectives, a founding vision for Social

Ecology was to provide an education which would produce graduates who would
be "more effective and knowledgeable citizens because of a familiarity with
community problems and the potential modes of solution..." (Binder, 1972, p.
905).

Another distinguishing feature of the founding curricula was a commitment to

making most Social Ecology courses available to students majoring elsewhere
on the UCI campus. The goal of such an outreach is "the development of an
environmental or ecological outlook among students whose primary interests are
more traditional" (Binder, 1972, p. 905).
Citation:
Binder, Arnold (1972) A new context for psychology: Social ecology. American
Psychologist, 27, September, 1972, 903-908.
************************
B. BINDER'S TWELVE DISTINCTIVE PRECEPTS TO GUIDE THE FUTURE
By way of summary, this founding vision for Social Ecology has a number of
distinctive dimensions and original conceptualizations. These distinguish it from
the more traditional disciplinary-based academic departments and schools which
characterize research multiversities at the end of the Twentieth Century:

1. A commitment to addressing social problems of the day;

2. A mission defined by innovation and collaboration across disciplines,

not by disciplinary boundaries;

3. A vision of broad interdisciplinarity including components from the

biological and physical as well as the behavioral and social sciences;

4. A research mission which is directly relevant to issues of public policy

and social problems;

5. In the context of a commitment to undergraduate education, a dual

focus on educating for community-oriented jobs as well as training
research workers;

6. A goal of fostering the direct interaction between the intellectual life of

the university and recurring community problems which stem from the
interaction of the social and the physical environment;

7. A conception of human beings as biological organisms in a culturalphysical environment;

8. The necessity for multi-disciplinarity as a fundamental principal for
determining the overall composition of the Social Ecology faculty;

9. Equipping students to attack and solve environmental problems as a

goal of the founding curricula. (Environmental problems were broadly
defined to include the relationship of humans to the biological and physical
environment, the effects of social heritage, and how people relate to each
other (social relationships);

10. An emphasis on interaction in considerations of people and the

environment;

11. A goal of producing knowledgeable citizens for society who are familiar
both with community problems and with potential modes of solution;

12. A commitment to contributing to an infusion within the broader

university curriculum of an environmental or ecological outlook for
students of more traditional disciplinary interests.

(Reviewer's Note: The term "precept" was deliberately chosen by the reviewer,
Professor Whiteley, because its first meaning ("Precept: A rule or principle
prescribing a particular course of action or conduct") captures the spirit of this
pioneering 1972 article.)

************************
C: ELABORATING THE FOUNDING VISION
In "Social Ecology: An Emerging Multidiscipline" Binder, Stokols, and Catalano
(1975) extended the rationale for the founding vision of Social Ecology articulated
originally in Binder (1972). The evolution of Social Ecology is rooted in a
challenge to the traditional purposes of higher education which are reflected in
the disciplinary-based modern research university. The challenge is "to make the
university enterprise more sensitive to non-academic needs and difficulties"
(Binder, Stokols, and Catalano, 1975, p. 32).

THE UNIVERSITY IN SOCIETY

In developing their conception of the needs of society and the role of the
university in addressing those needs, the authors drew on Weidner (1974) who
had written that the university should be "more fully a part of society" while
maintaining its autonomy and academic freedom: "the needs are for a university
that has a sense of social responsibility; that has a problem orientation to its
curriculum; that is concerned with future time; and that seeks the integration of
knowledge" (Weidner, 1974, p. 3). Key elements in the Weidner analysis are

social responsibility, problem oriented education and research, a future rather

than a past orientation to developing solutions to social problems, and a
commitment to integrating knowledge across pertinent disciplines.

INTERNATIONAL COMMONALITIES

Binder, Stokols, and Catalano (1975) surveyed a number of international

programs which had in common with the emerging social ecology paradigm
community involvement by faculty and students, and research and teaching
which is strongly multidisciplinary. A common approach which was observed
combined a broad definition of "environmental studies" with social and
interpersonal processes, and a consideration of the biological and physical
environment. The intellectual and programmatic development of Social Ecology
was clearly occurring in a global context.

A common theme in the international context for the development of the social
ecological paradigm was increasing societal concern for the social and
environmental problems which were resistant to disciplinary based definition and
approaches to solution. This created what the authors called a "supportive
atmosphere for the innovation of interdisciplinary, problem-oriented programs"
(Binder, Stokols, and Catalano, 1975, p. 34).

INTELLECTUAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL PARADIGMS

Contemporaneous with the development in the broader society of a supportive

atmosphere for the social ecological approach was the construction of a
theoretical basis on which researchers "from disparate areas could collaborate in
an effort to apply scientific methodology to the analysis and resolution of societal
problems" (Binder, Stokols, and Catalano, 1975, p. 34) An analytical framework
was articulated in which societal problems could be analyzed systematically at
macro and micro levels.

The authors provided a detailed examination of the intellectual foundations of the

ecological paradigm from its roots in biological and sociological perspectives and

from psychological and architectural perspectives. The implications of this

explication of the ecological paradigm are profound in their implications for social
ecological research.

By way of example, the authors use Michelson's notion of "intersystem

congruence" to demonstrate how architecture and urban design can be impacted
by related areas of research. Michelson's construct defines as optimal
environments ones in which the personal needs and cultural values of those who
live in the environment are congruent with the specific environment's social and
physical characteristics. For example, psychosocial profiles may become the
basis for developing the nature of future settings which are designed for their
congruence with cultural and personal attributes of those who will reside in them.

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY

Academic study within Social Ecology is axiomatically applicable to the

community: The community itself serves as "an auxiliary source of educational
enrichment" (Binder, Stokols, and Catalano, 1975, p. 41). Rather than traditional
organization by academic subject matter or discipline, the curricula is organized
by problem area. There is a coordination between theoretical and applied
learning and on-campus and off-campus experience. Central features of Social
Ecology are an encompassing environmental outlook, multi-disciplinarity, and
community involvement.

Citation:
Binder, A. (1972) A new context for psychology: Social ecology. American
Psychologist, 27, September, 1972, 903-908.

Binder, A., Stokols, D. & Catalano, R. (1975). Social Ecology: An emerging

multidiscipline. Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), Winter, 32-43.

Weidner, E.W. (1974). Environmental education: An academic plan for

universities. Address for O.E.C.D. Conference on Environmental

Education, Rugsted, Denmark, June, 1974.

Michelson, E. (1970). Man and his urban environment: A sociological

approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

************************

table of contents

SECTION VI:
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT UCI TRANSITION FROM DEVELOPING PROGRAM TO
ESTABLISHED SCHOOL 1988-1992
This section presents several of the key documents which were submitted as part
of the transition of the Program in Social Ecology to its current status as a School
of Social Ecology. Initially Social Ecology was classified as an interdisciplinary
program.
There are three documents which comprise SECTION V. The first is an excerpt
from a proposal to establish a School of Social Ecology submitted to the UCI
administration dated June of 1989. The second is adapted from a presentation
then Director of Social Ecology Daniel Stokols to the Representative Assembly of
the UCI Academic Senate on November 29, 1990. The third is the Social Ecology
portion of the 1990 UCI Academic Plan called "Visions for the 21st Century"

Proposal to Establish a School of Social Ecology

at the University of California, Irvine
(Excerpt from June, 1989)

... Still the important question remains: What are the unique research and
educational functions served by Social Ecology? Is the present proposal to
establish a School of Social Ecology simply an effort by one unit to enlarge its
resource base, or will the proposed reorganization help to achieve significant
research and educational gains for the campus as a whole? To address these
issues, we first describe certain intellectual themes and substantive concerns
that are emphasized within Social Ecology. We then discuss the graduate and
undergraduate core curricula in Social Ecology and the ways in which these
required courses uniquely integrate the themes of ecological analysis,
interdisciplinary research, and community intervention. It is the integration and
application of these intellectual themes in our research and teaching programs
that make Social Ecology distinctive vis--vis other academic units.

Intellectual Themes Emphasized Within Social Ecology

The intellectual foundations of Social Ecology are quite diverse and span
numerous disciplines. The research orientation and educational philosophy of the
Program in Social Ecology are rooted in several intellectual traditions, including
evolutionary biology (Darwin, Wallace), open-systems theory (Von Bertalanffy,
Maruyama, Miller), the Chicago School of Human Ecology (Park, Burgess,
Hawley), urban sociology (Durkheim, Simmel, Wirth, Michelson), ecological
psychology (Barker, Lewin), and the fields of public health (Cassel), urban
planning (Haig), criminology and law (Sutherland, Cressey, Sax). But the
Program is not simply a multidisciplinary amalgam of disparate fields and
intellectual traditions. Rather, the research and educational perspectives
emphasized in our Program are rooted in a common set of theoretical and
methodological themes, all of which are derived from the ecological paradigm as
it has evolved within the fields of biology, sociology, psychology, and public
health. These over-arching themes are, in effect, the intellectual "glue" that links
the diverse research areas found within the Program.
Several programmatic themes are emphasized within Social Ecology's
undergraduate and graduate core curricula, as well as within our elective
courses. Among these themes are the following: (1)the close interdependence
among biotic and abiotic systems within environments of varying size and
complexity, and the ways in which balances and perturbations among these
systems occur through deviation-countering and deviation-amplifying processes;
(2)the importance of observing people-environment transactions within
naturalistic settings over extended periods as well as within shorter-term
laboratory situations, so that the reciprocal and context-specific nature of peopleenvironment relations can be better understood; (3)the value of integrating
multiple methodologies (e.g., qualitative and quantitative methods; environmental
monitoring, physiological assays, and survey research; experimental and quasiexperimental research designs) in analyses of complex ecological systems;

(4)the importance of linking scientific research and community intervention

strategies toward the resolution of pressing societal problems (e.g.,
environmental pollution, urban violence and crime; health and behavioral impacts
of new technologies); and, (5)the value of approaching complex community and
environmental problems from multiple levels of analysis (spanning individuals,
small groups, organizations, whole communities and geographical regions),
rather than from singular disciplinary or theoretical perspectives.

Social Ecology's Core Curricula

The above-noted principles of ecological analysis, interdisciplinary research, and
community intervention are introduced at the graduate level through the Seminar
in Social Ecology (SE200). This course highlights the intellectual roots of Social
Ecology and examines the theoretical and methodological tenets of ecologicallyoriented research. Graduate students also take two quarters of multivariate
statistics (SE264 A&B) and a seminar in Research Methods (SE201). These
courses introduce students to a broad range of methodological strategies and
statistical techniques for the measurement and evaluation of ecological systems.
For their fifth core seminar, students can choose among three different courses:
Program Evaluation (SE291), Behavioral Epidemiology (SE224), or Strategies of
Theory Development (SE261). Together, the five required graduate courses
provide in-depth coverage of the intellectual traditions and programmatic
concerns of Social Ecology. Graduate Students also take six additional elective
courses in which these general principles and themes are elaborated within the
context of specific substantive areas (e.g., environmental health, urban planning,
human development, health psychology, criminology, law and society).
The undergraduate core curriculum in Social Ecology includes five lower division
courses and three upper division courses. The lower level courses introduce
students to the principles of ecological analysis as they apply within three broad
areas of inquiry: Criminal Justice (J4), Environmental Analysis (E8), and Social
Behavior (S9). Social Ecology majors also are required to take two methodology
courses, Research Design (SE10) and Statistics (SE13 or equivalent). The upper
level courses consist of the field study sequence. These include a lecture course
introducing field observation techniques (Studies in Field Settings, SE194) and
two quarters of field internship (about 10 hours per week in a field setting plus
one hour per week in small seminar with a faculty supervisor, SE195). In
addition, Social Ecology majors are required to take ten upper-division elective
courses and can choose to graduate with specializations in Environmental
Analysis, Social Behavior, or Criminal Justice by taking six of their electives
within one of these three areas.

Proposal to Reorganize
the Program in Social Ecology as a School
Summary of Comments Presented by
Daniel Stokols, Program in Social Ecology,
to UCI's Representative Assembly on November 29, 1990
1. Origins and Academic Mission of Social Ecology
The Program in Social Ecology was established at UCI in 1970 as an
interdisciplinary academic unit spanning the environmental, behavioral,
legal and health sciences. The intellectual foundations of the Program are
rooted in the ecological paradigm as it has evolved in both the natural and
the behavioral sciences. The academic mission of the Program in Social
Ecology encompasses at least two major goals: (1) to train students to
analyze scientific and public policy questions from a broad,
interdisciplinary perspective; and (2) to apply basic theory and research to
the analysis and resolution of community problems. These principles of
ecological analysis, interdisciplinary research, and community problemsolving are reflected in several facets of Social Ecology's curricular and
administrative organization:

A. Undergraduate and Graduate Core Courses which

emphasize key integrative themes.

B. Undergraduate Field Study Internships, required for all

Social Ecology majors. This requirement includes an
introductory course on Studies in Field Settings (SE 194)
and at least two quarters of field internship (SE 195) with a
community organization. Field study placements give Social
Ecology majors an opportunity to assess the contributions
and limits of academic knowledge presented in the
classroom when applied within non-academic community
settings.

C. Multidisciplinary Academic Areas. These include the

Areas of Environmental Analysis and Design, Psychology
and Social Behavior, and Criminology, Law and Society.
Each Area is headed by a faculty chair and comprised of a

multidisciplinary faculty, rather than being organized around

singular disciplinary perspectives.

D. Interdisciplinary Research Programs Focusing on

Complex Social and Environmental Problems. Examples
include a five-year NICHD study of children's and parents'
reactions to alternative day-care arrangements; an NSFfunded study of risk assessment and communication
processes among migrant farm workers; epidemiologic
studies of the relationships between economic change,
mental and physical health, sponsored by the NIMH;
research on white collar crime within the health care and
savings & loan industries, sponsored by the NIJ; and EPAfunded studies of the human health consequences of water
pollution, air pollution, and lead contamination of soils.

E. Faculty Involvement in Community Problem-Solving

Arenas. Social Ecology faculty have served as members of
the Irvine City Council, the Irvine Planning Commission, the
Irvine Water District, Irvine's Public Services Commission,
and as Directors of the Youth Services Program, the Greater
Irvine Health Promotion Center, and the Orange County
Annual Survey.

2. Reasons for Reorganizing as a School

Over the past two decades, the Program in Social Ecology has grown
substantially and has achieved strength in several substantive areas.
Since 1984, the Program has offered three undergraduate specializations.
Since 1988, it has offered two masters and four doctoral concentrations.
The transition from a previously undifferentiated Program toward a
departmentalized School of Social Ecology, offering multiple graduate
degrees (in Urban and Regional Planning; Human Development; Health
Psychology; Criminology, Law and Society; Environmental Health and
Public Policy; and Social Ecology), would be advantageous for several
reasons:

A. By making Social Ecology's unique domains of excellence

more visible, the proposed school structure would strengthen
graduate recruitment efforts at UCI. Reorganized as a
school, Social Ecology would be better positioned to
compete effectively for outstanding graduate applicants vis-vis similar units such as Cornell's College of Human
Ecology and Penn State's College of Health and Human
Development.

B. The proposed school structure also would enable Social

Ecology to handle several internal, logistical demands more
effectively, including (1) the balancing of Area-specific
student enrollments, (2) the management of School-wide
and Area-specific curricula at both undergraduate and
graduate levels; (3) the implementation and management of
new graduate degrees, including the recently approved
Masters of Urban and Regional Planning, and proposed
Ph.D. degrees in Human Development, Health Psychology,
Criminology, Law and Society, and Environmental Health
and Public Policy; and (4) the strengthening of Social
Ecology's alumni outreach and development programs.

C. At a time when universities are being criticized for giving

too little attention to complex community problems (e.g.,
Bok, 1990; Boyer, 1990), UCI's Program in Social Ecology is
unique in the country for its long-standing commitment to
interdisciplinary education and research directed toward the
resolution of contemporary environmental and social
problems. The establishment of a School of Social Ecology
would give increased visibility to community-oriented
teaching and research at UCI, and highlight the University of
California's responsiveness to national educational needs
and complex societal problems.

3. Chronology of Social Ecology's Reorganization Proposal

A. Proposal submitted December, 1988, as part of UCI's

Long-Range Planning Process; comments on proposal

provided by Executive Vice Chancellor Tien, the Academic

Planning Council and several Senate and Administrative
Committees; final version of the reorganization plan
submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs, June 1989.

B. Further review of Social Ecology's reorganization plan by

the Executive Vice Chancellor, the Academic Planning
Council, several Senate and Administrative Committees
during 1989-90; compilation of UCI's Academic Plan during
Spring, 1990.

C. Proposal sent for formal review to UCI's Academic Senate

during Spring, 1990; proposal endorsed by UCI's Graduate
Council and Committee on Educational Policy during June,
1990, and by the Committees on Planning and Budget and
Academic Personnel during October, 1990; later endorsed
by the Executive Committee of the Senate on November 6
and the Representative Assembly on November 29, 1990.

D. Proposal to be sent to Chancellor Peltason and Executive

Vice Chancellor Smith for their review during December,
1990, with request for transmittal to the President's Office for
Systemwide review and approval.

********************************

Program in Social Ecology

Excerpt from

UCI Academic Plan

Visions for the 21st Century
University of California Irvine
1990

General

The Program in Social Ecology was established in 1970 as an interdisciplinary

unit to carry out research and provide instruction on contemporary problems in
the social and physical environment from an ecological perspective. Over the
past 20 years the Program in Social Ecology has compiled a strong record of
interdisciplinary research and teaching. External review committees have
commented on the distinctiveness and high quality of Social Ecology's
undergraduate and graduate curricula. For example, the most recent graduate
review committee commented that "We find the Program in Social Ecology to be
a valuable and unique resource for the State and for the nation. The
interdisciplinary model of the Program is imaginative and well-conceived. In
addition, while most examples of interdisciplinary education elsewhere have
failed, this Program has survived and is flourishing." Similarly, the undergraduate
review committee noted that "The Social Ecology Program is unique in this
country if not the world. Although there are some interdisciplinary programs in
other universities--Law and Society, Public Policy and Management,
Anthropology and Sociology--there is nothing quite like the combination,
ambition, and comprehensiveness found in Social Ecology."
The Program has established several nationally visible research programs and
graduate specializations in fields such as human development, health
psychology, criminology, law and society, and environmental analysis and design.
Social Ecology is the third largest undergraduate major on the campus and
carries a relatively high student-to-faculty ratio of 46:3, as of 1988-89. Social
Ecology's undergraduate field study and student affirmative action programs
(most notably, the Excellence and Minority Mentorship Programs) have earned
praise at campus and systemwide levels for their uniqueness and excellence.
The Program offers B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in Social Ecology.
Undergraduates may elect to take a general interdisciplinary Social Ecology
curriculum or to focus their studies in any of three areas of specialization:
Environmental Health and Planning; Psychology and Social Behavior; and
Criminology, Law and Society. In addition, undergraduates may enroll in the
Applied Ecology degree curriculum which is jointly offered by the Program and
the School of Biological Sciences.
The graduate program in Social Ecology focuses primarily upon theories and
research which have implications for social policy and action. In the last year,

four formal Ph.D. concentrations became available to graduate students: Human

Development; Health Psychology; Environmental Analysis and Design; and
Criminology, Law and Society. While the Program has no formal departments,
faculty members are affiliated with three major areas, each headed by a faculty
chair. While all faculty members have a primary affiliation with one group, many
also have secondary affiliations with one or more other groups. Each of the
groups is interdisciplinary, and the secondary affiliations further contribute to
maintenance of the interdisciplinary character which has successfully served as
the foundation of the Program since its inception.
Social Ecology currently has a faculty of 31, with six additional faculty positions
and one endowed chair available for recruitment. Two of the open faculty
positions will be filled as of July 1990. The Program is housed in 23,144 square
feet of the Social Ecology Building, which is currently inadequate to support
ongoing research and teaching activities. During Spring 1991, the Program is
scheduled to occupy an additional 6,000 square feet in the Social Ecology
Building, following the move of the Public Policy Research Organization to the
new Campus Office Building. During 1995-96, Social Ecology is scheduled to
occupy an additional 24,000 square feet in the new Social Science Building.
These augmentations of Social Ecology's space will permit the growth and
expansion of the Program's research and teaching activities, as outlined in its
Long-range Plan submitted in June 1989.

Undergraduate Education

There has been substantial growth in the number of Social Ecology majors in
recent years: in 1984-85 there were 441 majors, whereas in 1988-89 there were
1,082. Since an undergraduate does not have to declare commitment to one of
the three offered specializations, precise data on the distribution of students
among the general degree program and the three specialization programs are
not available. However, a review of courses taken by members of the class of
1989 indicates that about 10 percent elected the general curriculum, 5 percent
elected the Applied Ecology degree program, and 85 percent elected
specializations--20 percent in Environmental Health and Planning; 35 percent in
Psychology and Social Behavior; and 30 percent in Criminology, Law and
Society. The Environmental Health and Planning specialization focuses on issues
related to the impact of the physical environment on human health and behavior.
The Psychology and Social Behavior specialization is concerned with human
behavior over the life span in various social contexts (e.g., the family, workplace,
school). The social control of criminality and violence and the relationship
between society and its legal institutions are central issues addressed in the
Criminology, Law and Society specialization.

A special feature of the Social Ecology undergraduate curriculum is its field

studies requirement. All majors must participate in field research. The settings
provided for student field study include a wide range of problem-oriented
institutions in the private and public sectors (e.g., schools, health care facilities,
private law firms, police departments). An honors program is open to upper
division students who have completed at least five upper-division Social Ecology
courses with a minimum GPA of 3.5.
Growth in the undergraduate major has been accompanied by growth in the
undergraduate workload. In 1984-85, the Program was responsible for a threeterm average workload of approximately 8,400 student credit-hours, whereas
1988-89 the figure was 15,000 student credit hours.

New Undergraduate Programs

The Program has proposed that it be administratively reorganized as a School.

Under such a restructuring, the core Social Ecology curriculum would be
retained, and students would be able to elect a general Social Ecology degree or
the Applied Ecology major. Three areas of undergraduate emphasis, closely
related to the existing ones, would be available. The area of environmental
analysis and design would provide undergraduates an opportunity to specialize in
applied ecology, environmental health, architecture, facilities management, and
urban design and planning. The area of psychology and social behavior would
provide curricula leading to specializations in developmental and health
psychology, demography, urban sociology, and social epidemiology. The third
area--criminology, law, and society--would offer specialty tracks in criminology,
environmental law, legal institutions and legal procedure, and the relationships of
law and the social sciences. The establishment of these areas each offering a
variety of specialty tracks, would allow significantly greater coherence of Social
Ecology's undergraduate curriculum.

Graduate Education

The Social Ecology graduate program grew from 62 students in 1984-85 to 86 in

1988-89. That almost 40 percent increase was accompanied by a decrease in
admissions selectivity; 33 percent of its applicants were admitted in 1984-85,
whereas 48 percent were admitted in 1988-89. However, only 32 percent of the
graduate applicants were admitted during 1989-90. Although some decline was

noted in the quality of students entering the graduate program during 1988-89
(as assessed by math and verbal GRE scores), the quality of entering graduate
students was quite strong in 1989-90.
As of 1988, four formal Ph.D. concentrations became available, in addition to the
general Social Ecology graduate program. These concentrations are: Health
Psychology; Human Development; Environmental Analysis and Design; and
Criminology, Law, and Society. Because these concentrations are new and not all
students have indicated whether they are going to take one of them, it is possible
only to estimate the number of students in each area. However, current data
indicate that 32 percent of graduate students are unaffiliated with a concentration
and that 25 percent are in Human Development, 15 percent are in Health
Psychology, 15 percent are in Criminology, Law and Society, and 13 percent are
in Environmental Analysis and Design. In addition to these Ph.D. concentrations,
the Program also offers two Master's degree concentrations, Urban and Regional
Planning and Facilities Planning and Management. Their first classes will be
admitted Fall 1991.

New Graduate Programs

The Program submitted a proposal to offer a master's degree in Urban and

Regional Planning which was approved by the Graduate Council in 1989 and by
CCGA in 1990. The proposal is currently under review by the Office of the
President and the California Post-Secondary Education Commission. It is
anticipated that the proposal will be approved this year and that implementation
of the program will begin Fall 1991. There currently are 13 Social Ecology faculty
who will contribute to this master's program and 18 faculty in other units whose
teaching and research activities are relevant to it; the Program is now working to
recruit three faculty members in this area as well. The Program, which is a
professional program, is expected to have an enrollment of approximately 20
students in its first few years. The new M.A. concentration in Facilities Planning
and Management is also expected to enroll approximately 20 students a year.
The Program's proposal for reorganization as a School involves some
restructuring of its graduate degree programs. Under the three departments that
would be established, a number of graduate degree programs will be developed
over the next decade. The Environmental Analysis and Design group would offer
three postbaccalaureate degrees under the proposal: the Master's in Urban and
Regional Planning, a Master's in Facilities Planning and Management, and a
Ph.D. in Environmental Health and Public Policy. The proposal calls for the
Psychology and Social Behavior area faculty to offer Ph.D. programs in Human
Development and health Psychology. The Program submitted a proposal to

establish a Ph.D. in Health Psychology to the Graduate Council during Fall 1989.
A proposal to establish the Human Development Ph.D. was submitted to the
Graduate Council during Winter 1990. Both proposals are currently under review.
The Criminology, Law, and Society group would offer a single Ph.D. program. In
addition to these focused graduate programs, Social Ecology will continue to
offer the M.A. and Ph.D. in the general area of Social Ecology.
The Program's proposal to become a School would create three schoolwide
administrative positions; Dean, Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, and
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies and would also create three
departments. The most recent external review committees for Social Ecology's
undergraduate and graduate programs have expressed support for the
reorganization. As has been discussed above, one objective of this restructuring
is to develop more focused undergraduate and graduate curricula. The Program
plans to maintain its unique interdisciplinary structure and educational orientation
by requiring all Ph.D. students to take a core curriculum involving interdisciplinary
emphases. The range of programs to be offered will be considered within the
context of the campus resources required to mount nationally recognized
programs in each area. It is clear that the Criminology, Law, and Society area
(department) will facilitate eventual establishment of a law school at UCI.
Moreover, the area allows for the eventual development of an interschool degree
program in jurisprudence and social policy. Similarly, the new degree programs in
Urban and Regional Planning and Facility Planning and Management will provide
an intellectual basis for the possible establishment of a school of urban planning
and design at UCI. The relationship between the proposed Ph.D. in Health
Psychology and the development of a doctoral program in clinical psychology, a
possibility also now under active consideration, is currently being assessed. As at
other major universities, these programs could complement each other and
enrich the training of graduate students in each specialty. The faculty of the
Program in Social Ecology have prepared several detailed degree proposals that
merit the closest consideration in the context of the development of both the
initiatives of Social Ecology and the campus as a whole.

table of contents

SECTION VII:
HISTORICAL MILESTONES OF DEVELOPMENT

1970 Founding of the Program (and B.A. Degree) in Social Ecology at UCI
by Professor Arnold Binder.

1973 M.A. in Social Ecology established.

1975 Ph.D. in Social Ecology established.
1984 Relocation from Engineering and Computer Science Buildings to the
new Social Ecology Building (now called Social Ecology I).
1989 Establishment of three Areas (Psychology and Social Behavior;
Criminology, Law and Society; Environmental Analysis and Design) and
appointment of Area Chairs.
1990 Establishment of Ph.D. Degrees in Human Development and Health
Psychology.
1991 Establishment of Ph.D. Degree in Criminology, Law and Society and
the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning; Social Ecology's fourth Area,
the Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, also established.
1992 Social Ecology formally designated as a School by the UC Regents
in May; establishment of Departments and B.A. majors in PSB, CLS, and
EAD in July.
1993 Proposal to establish URP Department approved by UCI Academic
Senate; proposals to establish Ph.D. Degrees in Environmental Health
Science and Policy and Urban and Regional Planning submitted to the
UCI Graduate Council.
1994 Construction of Social Ecology II Building to commence; completion
of the Social Sciences II Complex scheduled for Spring or Summer, 1996.
1996 Approval of new Ph.D. programs in Urban and Regional Planning
and Environmental Health Science and Policy.
1996 Opening of the Social Ecology II Building.
1996 Celebration of Social Ecology's 25th Anniversary.
1997 Rediscovering Social Ecology initiated by graduate students.
1999 Approintment of C. Ronald Huff as Dean of Social Ecology
table of contents

SECTION VIII:
APPLICATION OF THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY
PERSPECTIVE TO HEALTH PROMOTION

Stokols (1992) conceptualized health promotion broadly as "a dynamic

transaction between individuals and groups and their psychosocial milieu (p. 8)".
Such a conceptualization requires an analysis of both the environmental
resources which are available and the life-styles and health habits of the
individuals under study.
The first step was to measure the features of the environment which promote
personal and collective well-being by different criteria at different levels of
analysis. In taking this first step Stokols employed one of the basic assumptions
of the ecological perspective that "healthfulness is a multifaceted phenomenon
encompassing physical health, emotional well-being, and social cohesion
(Stokols, 1992, p. 8)."

Conceptualizing Health-Promotive Environments

For Stokols, an "explicit recognition of the multiple facets of healthfulness has
important implications for ecologically oriented analyses of health promotion
(Stokols, 1992, p. 8)." Such a recognition leads to defining the health-promotive
capacity of an environment in terms of multiple health outcomes:
... the health-promotive capacity of an environment must be defined
in terms of the multiple health outcomes resulting from peopleenvironment transactions over a specified time interval. Thus, for
any environmental context of behavior, it is important to specify key
environmental resources or constraints that are likely to influence
personal and collective well-being among members of the setting
(Stokols, 1992, p. 9).
In Tabular form, Stokols represented this analysis as follows (presented in
abbreviated form):

Social Ecological Multi-Level Analysis

of Health-Promotive Environments
_______________________________________________
_________________

Facets of
HealthfulnessResources
in the Environment
Behavioral
Psychological & Physiological Outcomes
<-- Multi-perspective -->

_______________________________________________
_________________
Physical health

Injury resistant,
not toxic

Absence of illness symptoms

|
multi-level
|
Emotional
well-being
Social cohesion

Environmental
predictability
Social support
networks

Attachment to
social milieu
Social contact
and cooperation

_________________________________________________________
___
The table presented environmental resources which have a positive influence on
individual and group well-being. Person-environment transactions with health
outcomes may be assessed at different levels of analysis.
Stokols notes that "Given the diversity of environmental conditions present in
most settings, it is likely that the relationships between those conditions and
multiple health indices will be quite varied and sometimes contradictory (Stokols,
1992, p. 9)." In a social ecological analysis of health promotion, the principal
point is the importance of examining both physical and social dimensions of
environments and their joint influence of well-being.

Modeling Relationships Among Environmental

and
Behavioral Factors in Health

Another aspect of applying a social ecological perspective to health promotion is

the task of developing interdisciplinary models of the relationships among
environmental and behavioral factors in health.
Following L. W. Green's (1984) article "Modifying and developing health
behavior" which appeared in the Annual Review of Public Health (Vol. 11, pp.
215-236), Stokols drew attention to a bias in the health-promotion field toward
psychological analyses. Interventions with an illness-prevention purpose typically
have little or no theoretical input from the fields of sociology, anthropology,
economics, and political science.
By way of contrast, a broader analysis is possible by focusing from a social
ecological perspective on the health-promotive capacity of environments: "of the
transitions between individual and collective behaviors and the various
constraints and resources for health that exist in specific sociophysical
environments (Stokols, 1992, p. 12)."
The approach Stokols took to accomplish this task was to extend the analysis of
healthy environments to a more comprehensive and interactive analysis of "the
relationships among behavioral and environmental factors in health and health
promotion (Stokols, 1992, p. 12)."
Represented in text format are five health-related functions of the sociophysical
environment:

1. Both the physical and social environment can function as mediums for
disease transmission.
Examples:
aterborne and airborne diseases
llnesses resulting from food contamination
pread of contagious disease through interpersonal contact
2. The environment can operate as a stressor.
Examples:
motional stress resulting from chronic exposure to
uncontrollable environmental demands

hysical debilitation resulting from chronic exposure to

uncontrollable environmental demands, (illustrations of
uncontrollable environmental demands are noise, abrupt economic
change, or interpersonal conflict)
Stokols also notes that exposure to a positive environment can alleviate stress and
promote physical and emotional well-being.
3. The environment functions as a source of safety or danger with respect to
health consequences.
Examples:
atural and technological disasters
ir and water pollution
ccupational hazards
nterpersonal violence
rime
4. The environment can function as an enabler of health behavior.
Examples:
nstallation of safety devices in buildings and vehicles
eographic proximity to health care
xposure to cultural practices which foster health-promotive
behavior
5. The environment serves as a provider of health resources.
Examples:
ommunity sanitation services
rganizational and community health services
egislation protecting the quality of physical environments
egislation ensuring citizens' access to health insurance

egislation ensuring citizens' access to community-based health

care
Stokols (1992) observed that in specific environmental contexts the health-relevant
functions of the sociophysical environment can operate concurrently and are closely
intertwined.
The multi-perspective approach and the multi-level analytical framework of social
ecology may be illustrated in its application to health promotion. The five health-related
functions of the sociophysical environment are one element of a social ecology
perspective.
Another component of a social ecology perspective on health promotion is to link an
environmental analysis to biological, psychological, and behavioral factors in health, then
to develop the framework which emerges at different levels of analysis. Linking an
environmental analysis to biological, psychological, and behavior factors was
accomplished by Stokols (1992) with two specific categories under the general heading
of "Personal and Environmental Factors in Health and Illness."
The first specific category he labeled "Biopsychobehavioral Factors." Within this
category were three perspectives: Biogenic, Psychological, and Behavior. Each
perspective was then approached from a multi-level analytic framework:
Biogenic
Examples:
amily history
xposure to infectious pathogens
isabling injury
ge
ender
Psychological
Examples:
ptimism
nterpersonal skills
oronary-prone orientation
ancer-prone orientation
epression

Behavioral
Examples
ietary regimens
lcohol consumption
moking
xercise patterns
leep patterns
The second specific category he labeled "Sociophysical Environmental Factors." Within
this category were three perspectives: Geographic, Architectural and Technological, and
Sociocultural. Each perspective was then approached from a multi-level analytic
framework:
Geographic
Examples:
roundwater contamination
ltraviolet radiation
tmospheric ozone depletion
lobal warming
ealth consequences of reduced biodiversity
Architectural and Technological
Examples:
on-toxic construction
oise pollution
ehicular and passenger safety
ater quality treatment
ndoor air pollution, "sick building syndrome"
Sociocultural
Examples:
ocioeconomic status
rganizational or political instability

vailability of health insurance

nvironmental protection regulations
ocial support versus social isolation
Combining these two general categories provides six different perspectives on
personal and environmental factors in health and illness:
iogenic
sychological
ehavioral
eographic
rchitectural and Technological
ociocultural
Each of these different perspectives are then approached from a social
ecological perspective from different levels of analysis.
Another framework for analysis within a social ecological perspective would be to
link the five health-related functions of the sociophysical environment to the
identification of the specific mechanisms by which geographic, architecturaltechnological, and sociocultural factors influence health and illness. Since
research has not yet confirmed many of the specific linkages, such a framework
for analysis also defines a number of avenues for future inquiry. Stokols (1992)
represented this analytical framework visually. Dimensions of the environment
(multiple perspectives) were presented in terms of levels of function of the
environment, and whether the dimension identified and selected was physical or
social.
This was represented visually as follows:

Dimensions of the Environment

Environmental

Physical

Social

Function
<--multi-perspective -->

(Adapted from Daniel Stokols "Establishing and Maintaining

Healthy Environments: Toward a Social Ecology of Health
Promotion" American Psychologist January 1992, Vol. 47, No. 1,
pp. 6-22.)
In this framework, each of the dimensions of the environment were then
approached in terms of levels of analysis.

Environmental Function
____________________________________________________
______________
Physical

Social

__________________________________________________________
________________
Medium of Disease
Water and
airbourne disease

Contagious disease
spread through contact
Stressor

Exposure to
uncontrollable noise

Chronic
social conflict
Source of Safety or Danger

Effects
of toxic hazards

Injury from
violence or crime
Enabler of Health Behavior

Geographic accessibility
of health care practices

Cultural and
religious which are
health-promotive

Provider of Health Resources

Community sanitation

Legislation on
public health &
safety

Stokols indicates that a social ecological perspective on health promotion has

important implications for theory development and basic research, as well as for
the development of public policy, community intervention, and program
evaluation.

table of contents

SECTION IX:
THE POTENTIAL OF TRANSDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH

The source of perspective for this section of Conceptual Social ecology are Rosenfield
(1992) and Stokols (1998).
CONCEPTUAL RATIONALE FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Both Stokols (1998) and Rosenfield (1992) consider the essence of transdisciplinary
research to be a common conceptual framework which blends existing concepts and
theories. Expected outcomes of transdisciplinary research are more comprehensive
analyses, new concepts, and new research techniques. Additional outcomes include new
training programs and policy changes.
The emphasis is on taking into account the "broader context" in which occurs the societal
problem of health or environment which is under study. Taking in account "the broader
context" leads to more lasting improvements in the situation which is being studied.
Rosenfield urges that researchers "fuse the research approaches and work together in data
collection and analysis and interpretation of findings" (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1349).

CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY, AND

TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Rosenfield (1992, p 1351) provides a taxonomy of cross disciplinary research by

distinguishing the distinctive characteristics of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
transdisciplinary research.
Multidisciplinary: "Researchers work in parallel or sequentially from disciplinaryspecific base to address common problem." (Rosenfield, 1992, p.1251).
The strength of such an approach is that it can lead to immediate solutions, though they
may be "possibly short-lived...". A limitation is that it is not usually "conceptually
pathbreaking." As multidisciplinary research is conducted, each discipline works
independently. Results which are a product of the research are "usually brought together
only at the end" (Rosenfield, 1992, 1351).
Interdisciplinary: "Researchers work jointly but still from disciplinary-specific
basis to address common problem" (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1351).
The strength of this approach is that "serious projects are contributing new knowledge"
from a different disciplines using their specific techniques and skills (Rosenfield, 1992, p.
1352). In contrast to multidisciplinary research, representatives of disciplines do not work
independently. Results which are a product of the research are typically reported "in a
partial, discipline-by-discipline sequence" (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1351).
Transdisciplinary: "Researchers work jointly using shared conceptual framework
drawing together disciplinary-specific theories, concepts, and approaches to
address common problem" (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1351)
The strength of this approach is that it builds a common conceptual framework which
serves as a comprehensive organizing construct for research that transcends separate
disciplinary theoretical and methodological orientations. The common conceptual
framework can be used "to define and analyze the research problem..." (Rosenfield, 1992,
p. 1351).

A result of a common conceptual framework is that it can lead to new practical

approaches to solving societal problems of health and environment. In transdisciplinary

inquiry, researchers work together on such basic research tasks as defining the problem,
identifying concepts and research methods, and presenting results. New approaches to
social and medical science flow from the process of working together.

ILLUSTRATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRANSDISCIPLINARY

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Rosenfield (1992) describes the characteristics of a conceptual framework for

transdisciplinary research. Such a framework "should explicitly incorporate structures of
society and bring into play all conditioning factors which influence the extent of health
problems" (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1351).

By way of example, she provided an illustration of incorporating the conceptual

relationship between social, economic, political, and intersectoral conditions and impacts
in a study of tropical disease.

1. Examine social and economic consequences of tropical diseases;

2. Following adaptation, examine the development and use of medical technologies;

3. Explicitly include the contextual, political, economic factors;

4. Explicitly include health inputs, inputs from other sectors;

5. Explicitly include the combined impact on health, social, and economic outcomes
"which then feedback to change the baseline conditions" (Rosenfield, 1992, p.

1352).

TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH GOALS AND OUTCOMES

Rosenfield identified the goal of transdisciplinary research in the context of

epidemiological challenges in the rise of chronic disease in developing countries and the
resurgence of infectious diseases in developed countries:

"...the conceptual framework must transcend disciplinary bounds and, yet, draw
on the previous knowledge and experiences of those disciplines. A new type of
research should emerge that enables the analysis of a particular problem to be
located in the transdisciplinary conceptual framework and to be analyzed
accordingly" (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1352).
Results from a transdisciplinary framework can lead to "broadly-based trans-sectoral
programs and actions with longer life--new concepts, methods, and policies" (Rosenfield,
1992, p. 1353).

Transdisciplinary research is not "research as usual." There is a "full discussion" of the

problem, and more "extensive" and "in-depth" analyses. In the tropical health example,
what was included was broadly based: the research framework was expanded to include
"concepts from sociology, demography, anthropology, epidemiology, immunology,
parasitology, and entomology coalesced and linked with the basic economic concepts
underlying the migration and resettlement strategies of the government" (Rosenfield,
1992, p. 1353).

Again, by way of illustration from the tropical health example:

"Sociologists pondered new prevalence detection strategies and entomologists

explored changing human behaviors while anthropologists and demographers
noted changed vectorial behaviors: (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1353).
Such an approach to the process of the tropical health research led to shifts in paradigms
and in research practices. The potential of transdisciplinary research is moving to a stage
"where disciplines can build on their distinct traditions and coalesce to become a new

field of research..." (Rosenfield, 1992, p. 1354-1355).

Citations:
Rosenfield, P. L. (1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and
extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science Med., 35(11),
1343-1357.

Stokols, D. (1998). The future of interdisciplinarity in the School of Social Ecology.

Paper presented at the School of Social Ecology Associates Annual Awards Reception.
School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine. May 21, 1998.
<>http://eee.uci.edu/98f/50990/readings.htm

table of contents

SECTION X:
25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

UCI News: UCI School of Social Ecology: 25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

table of contents

SECTION XI:
THE FUTURE OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN THE
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY

Dan Stokols: The Future of Interdisciplinarity in the School of Social Ecology

table of contents

SECTION XII:
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCIENTIFIC
SOCIAL ECOLOGY
Compiled by Daniel Stokols for an Undergraduate Seminar

PART I: HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY

Principles of Biological and Human Ecology

Hawley, A.H. (1950). Human ecology. International encyclopedia of

the social sciences, Vol. 4. New York: MacMillan, 328-336.

Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment: A

sociological approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 3-32.

Societal and Scientific Origins of Social Ecology

Binder, A. (1972). A new context for psychology: Social ecology.
American Psychologist, 27, 903-908.

Binder, A., Stokols, D., & Catalano, R. (1975). Social ecology: An

emerging multidiscipline. Journal of Environmental Education, 7,
32-43.

Catalano, R. (1979). Health, behavior and the community. New

York: Pergamon Press, Chapters 1, 2, 4.

Proshansky, H.M. (1972). For what are we training our graduate

students? American Psychologist, 27, 205-212.

PART II: SYSTEMS THEORY AS A BASIS FOR SOCIAL

ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Homeostasis and Disequilibrium Within Biological and Social Systems

Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1975). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation.

Sociometry, 28, 289-304.

Bales, R.F. (1949). Adaptive and integrative changes as sources of

strain in social systems. In R.F. Bales, Interaction process analysis:
A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-

Wesley, 127-131.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of

organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 14-29.

Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167,

1461-1468.

Selye, H. (1973). The evolution of the stress concept. American

Scientist, 61, 692-699.

Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley, 69-88; 262-263.

Wynne-Edwards, V.C. (1962). Self-regulating systems in

populations of animals. Science, 147, 1543-1548.

Interdependencies Between the Social and Physical Environment, Human

Behavior and Well-being
Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. (1972). The environmental quality of city
streets: The residents' viewpoint. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, 38, 233-258.

Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Davidson, L.M. (1983). Natural disaster
and technological catastrophe. Environment and Behavior, 15, 333354.

Lewis, C.A. (1979). Healing in the urban environment: A

person/plant viewpoint. American Planing Association Journal, 45,
330-338.

Newman, O. Defensible space. New York: Macmillan Publishing

Co., Inc., 1-19.

Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641-651.

Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery

from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421.

PART III: INTERDISCIPLINARITY, CONTEXTUAL THEORIZING AND

RESEARCH

Disciplines, Paradigms, and Theories

Campbell, D.T. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale

model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine
Press, 328-348.

Durkheim, E. (1964). The rules of sociological method. New York: The

Free Press, Introduction, 1-13.

Jessor, R. (1958). The problem of reductionism in psychology.

Psychological Review, 65, 245-257.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 11-29.

Shapere, D. (1976). Critique of the paradigm concept. In M.H. Marx &

F.E. Goodson, (Eds.). Theories in contemporary psychology, . New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 53-61.

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological

Review, 20, 158-177.

Contextual Analyses Within the Fields of Criminology, Environmental Analysis,

Human Development, and Public Health
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-530.

Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A
routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

Sarbin, T.R. (1970). The culture of poverty, social identity, and cognitive
outcomes. In Allen, V.L. (Ed.), Psychological factors in poverty. Chicago:
Markham Publishing Company, 29-47.

Stern, P.C., & Gardner, G.T. (1981). Psychological research and energy
policy. American Psychologist, 36, 329-342.

Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments:

Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47,

6-22.

Stokols, E., & Altman, I. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of Environmental

Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Preface-70.

PART IV: SOCIAL ECOLOGY AND COMMUNITY PROBLEMSOLVING

Avoiding Unintended Side-Effects of Community Interventions

Barsky, A.J. (1988). The paradox of health. New England Journal of

Medicine, 318, 414-418.

Becker, M.H. (1991). In hot pursuit of health promotion: Some

admonitions. In S.M. Weiss, J.E. Fielding, & A. Baum (Eds.).
Perspectives in behavioral medicine: Health at work. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 178-188.

Everett, P.B., Hayward, S.C., & Meyers, A.W. (1974). The effects of
a token reinforcement procedure on bus ridership. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 1-9.

Geller, E.S. (1991). Where's the validity in social validity? Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204.

Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B.H. (1976). Long-term effects of control and
predictability-enhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1194-1202.

Willems, E.P. (1973). Go ye into the world and modify behavior: An

ecologist's view. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 4,
93-105.

Developing Research-Based Guidelines for Environmental and Urban

Design
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., FiksdahlKing, I, & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford
University Press, 610-613; 889-892.

Marcus, C.C. (1985). Design guidelines: A bridge between research

and decision-making. Paper presented at the U.S.-Japan seminar
on environment-behavior research. Department of Psychology,
University of Arizona, Tucson, October, 1985.

Reizenstein Carpman, J., Grant, M.A. & Simmons, D.A. (1986).

Design that cares: Planning health facilities for patients and visitors.
Chicago: American Hospital Association, 11-20; 197-218.

Stokols, D. (in press). Strategies of environmental simulation:

Theoretical, methodological, and policy issues. In R.W. Marans &
D. Stokols (Eds.), Environmental simulation: Research and policy
Issues. New York: Plenum Press.

Yancey, W.L. (1971). Architecture, interaction, and social control:

The case of a large-scale public housing project. Environment and
Behavior, 3, 3-21.

Social Ecology and Social Change

Gergen, K.J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344-1360.

Platt, J.R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347-353.

Stokols, D. (1988). Transformational processes in peopleenvironment relations. In McGrath, J.E. (Ed.), The social
psychology of time: New perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 233-252.