Methodology Social Ecology Framework

3. Methodology

Social Ecology Framework

DIAC briefed the UTS Voices project to use a social ecology approach, in order to explore the dynamic interaction between the experiences of young Muslim Australians, and the wider society. The Department wished to understand the cultural landscape within which young Muslims operated, and the factors, ideas, experiences and activities that influenced them. This social ecology approach required the project to address a particular policy question: how to weave young Muslim Australians into the fabric of Australian society in ways that are meaningful for them, and are productive of social cohesion.

2006). These well‐evaluated projects have generated a corpus of knowledge that helps define likely trajectories of success (and failure) for public programs. If we view social integration (high levels of inter‐group trust, acceptance of diversity, and diversity in friendship networks) as a signal of the ‘social health’ of a society, then a simple model can be presented.

The report therefore addresses four related dimensions:

a) Analysis of the interactions for individuals and communities, to expose those that either inhibit or facilitate social engagement;

b) Assessment of strategies that operate across levels, looking for those that are reinforcing, and those that contain internal tensions and contradictions;

c) Identification of organizations and practices that already offer solutions for the barriers to engagement that have been previously researched and reported to DIAC;

d) Examination of gaps in public programs that undermine current initiatives, or reinforce barriers, with multi‐level proposals for interventions across government.

Underpinned by theoretical model of behaviour change Culturally appropriate and affectively compelling Community involvement

Financial and political support


Strategies

Increase beliefs in self‐efficacy Increase skills of target audience Address constraints on human agency

Reinforce change messages over time, using interpersonal and community support
Focus on positive outcome expectations, relevant to the target audience
Use simple messages, repeatedly and in many forums
Use appropriate channels for communication, such as entertainment, as a vehicle for education

Based on Panter‐Brick et al., 2006.

achieving their goals.

Compatible with a social ecology framework, we introduce here the development and application of the concept of ‘cultural capital’. The concept of cultural capital, drawn from the work of social philosopher Pierre Bourdieu, reflects the sense of ‘investment’ and the associated cultural

‘goods’ that enable social mobility and access to power within a society. Bourdieu refers to cultural capital having three dimensions, namely the embodied state of long lasting dispositions of the mind and the body, secondly the cultural objects that ‘objectify’ a society’s cultural value, and thirdly an institutionalised context where society rewards some forms of cultural capital while ignoring or de‐legitimating others (Bourdieu, 1986).
Also important is the concept of ‘social capital’ developed by Putnam (2002). Putnam uses the degree of participation in voluntary associations, both formal and informal, as an index of the strength of social capital in a society. Poor levels of social capital generate isolation, violence and crime. Social capital can be both ‘bonding’ that is building networks of association among people of like mind and background or ‘bridging’, supporting links between different communities. Strong societies display both strong bonding capital and strong bridging capital, thus supporting people in their intimate groups, and ensuring their confident participation in the wider society, its responsibilities and its rewards.
Thus the cultural capital that is created, sustained and communicated through ethno‐religious institutions will tend to contribute primarily to ‘bonding’ social capital, in a multicultural society based on reciprocal relations of tolerance and respect, significant energy needs to be also devoted to building bridging capital between communities. Bridging capital needs a multi‐ directional commitment from stakeholders in a variety of social locations, not simply the

‘minority’ or more marginalised sectors (though they too have responsibilities here). The social ecology of Muslim communities, it is suggested ranges across a full spectrum from groups that are fully integrated into wider sets of associations, through those that encourage interaction but are more concerned with building internal community cohesion, to those that have less interaction or engagement.