The post I just wrote below made me think of something I had not thought of before, and perhaps this can be the tie that Travis was looking for in the Introductory article (better than Bronfenbrenner). What role does Bandura's ideas on self-efficacy play in CA. I mean we develop a model where capability is the underlying concern for human development, but it is also true - if Bandura is right - that children learn from the positive reinforcement they observe in their parents. Instead of judging that woman with ten children what if you gave her a micro loan to open up a business and offered her childcare and helping in establishing that business. Now there would still be many commodities she did not have in her life but what would this mean not only for her own children but also the other young females in the neighborhood who came to her Italian Ices stand? How would it lead to increased levels of self-efficacy? Most of us would tend to give up on this woman with ten children, but does CA see her as an opportunity?
I am supposed to be working on a conference paper which I am supposed to deliver next week, but I choose freedom!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Positive reinforcement is powerful. One day in class we were discussing teen pregnancy, with several students indicating that teen pregnancy is not an uncommon event. Of course, it results in reinforcing small town and rural poverty. The interesting thing was actually the choices made by my students. Their desire to become teachers being motivated by a desire to move into the middle class. But beyond that obvious fact is a surprising number are not supported by family, with the exception of one young woman who wanted to continue working on the family dairy farm but was told by her grandma it was a dead end rode to poverty. However, when digging a little deeper positive reinforcement was present. For example, one mother of a student ran a family child care facility in the community (no Italian Ices, sorry). In a sparsely populated area, the micro loan concept can be potent. In fact, the micro loan supports the rural culture of relying on the strength of the community and its strong distrust of "outsiders".
ReplyDeleteMicro loans serve as a way to create what Deepa Narayan and Michael Woolcock have termed synergistic social capital - but what is critical and so difficult for our society is that success is dependent on the decisions about the loan being made from the point of view of the community not the point of view of the larger society providing the mother. You need to create local organization that help in determining where micro loans work best.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in how and which of your students actually are successful. If Bandura is right it will be those who know and have been able to observe people like the woman who opened the child care facility - but only if she is successful. And what allows people to be successful - it may be micro loans, but it is also issues such as help with setting up safe environment for the children, access to information both about setting up childcare and running a small business (and really how important is reading in this as opposed to networking), a healthy, safe environment so that the kids can play easily, good nutrition so the kids aren't acting out. The woman's success is dependent on the capabilities, and her daughter's and friend's success is dependent on her success.
A strong sense of community is prevalent, as are community organizations. Perhaps as a result of being a sparsley populated state, but local organizations have quite a bit of autonomy. This is an issue of social capital and yes, getting the money to where it is needed is critial together with the conditions within the environment. Here is my question: the childcare is established and provides a safe, healthy environment but the person running it celebrates Christian holidays and expects those enrolling to celebrate those same holidays. Is this capability issue or not?
ReplyDeleteRegarding positive enforcement: I just finished an article on social capital (Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy) and it got me thinking. The “network” view of social capital implies that there are two types of ties: strong and weak. Strong being family and close friends, and weak being those secondary associations, acquaintances I suppose. The research has apparently shown that strong ties are more likely to be utilized in a bonding effort, typically in poor communities. This results in a sort of defense, or getting by strategy, while those who utilize weak ties tend to be bridging, going on the offense, otherwise known as getting ahead (typically not found in poor communities). For Bandura children learn their reinforcement from parents – how does CA enter into communities in such a way that weak ties can begin to be seen as a positive force for elevating the capabilities of individuals, families, and communities?
ReplyDeleteAlso, and I quote:
“paradoxical as it may seem, ‘top-down’ efforts are usually needed to introduce, sustain, and institutionalize ‘bottom-up’ development. We are commonly constrained to think in ‘either-or’ terms – the more of the one the less of the other – when both are needed in a positive-sum way to achieve our purposes.”
Would we agree that CA provides a means to approach human development from both perspectives?