NCO101 Study Unit 1

Study Unit 1
Approaches to
Community Engagement
NCO101 Approaches to Community Engagement
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
1. Describe the principles of community engagement
2. Explain how to engage the community ethically and effectively
3. Discuss ecological systems theory
4. Apply ecological systems theory
SU1-2
Overview
Study Unit 1 provides a conceptual and methodical foundation to address issues

concerning community engagement, and from there, hopefully a basis for us to
tackle questions and issues concerning the role of the individual in a community.
Chapter 1 gives an overview of the key aspects of community engagement, such as
the various motivations, contexts as well as the principles and relevant concepts.
Chapter 2 introduces the ecological systems theory as a model to understand the
structures and dynamics of community, and from there, provide a basis to apply
various versions of the theory for community engagement initiatives.
SU1-3
Chapter 1 Approaches to Community Engagement
1.1 Why Engage
Community engagement is a relatively new organising concept used to describe a

range of activities that arguably predates the term. Individuals and organisations have
and will continue to come together and collaborate to address presenting issues and
problems. It can be as simple as volunteering your time to give tuition to
underprivileged children or to keep senior citizens company in their life’s twilight. It
can be on a larger, more complex scale, such as voluntary welfare organisations,
academia, government agencies or private sector companies, coming together to pilot
strategies that address issues concerning poverty, disease, or sustainability.
Community engagement is gaining traction due to an increasing awareness that the

issues confronting an interconnected world cannot be resolved or even begin to be
addressed by an individual or one organisation. The COVID19 pandemic for instance
has demonstrated how countries like Singapore are dependent on others for its food,
labour and security. The consequences of climate change affect not one but all
countries in the world. The issue of refugees fleeing war and persecution seeking
safety in another territory also requires a multilateral approach.
Correspondingly, there is also the acknowledgement that if education and scholarship

should have a positive impact on society, students (as well as their instructors) must
keep abreast of developments outside the ivory towers of universities. The Singapore
University of Social Sciences (SUSS) is one of the first universities in Singapore to have
a mandatory community engagement element in its full-time undergraduate
curriculum. This is an approach other and older Singaporean universities, such as
National University of Singapore (NUS), and Nanyang Technological University
(NTU), have begun to follow more recently.
For SUSS, community engagement is “an integral part of [its] learning ecology”. It
provides a foundation to “empower students to further develop and act on their sense
of social responsibility, grounded in real-world ideas and practices to contribute
meaningfully to society.” (SUSS Community Engagement FAQ)
SU1-4
One reason why community engagement is a requirement for full-time SUSS students
is an acknowledgement of claims that academic studies (worldwide, not just in
Singapore) can do better to connect effectively to the “real-world”, or in other words,
to the communities and environments that academic scholarship purport to support
with knowledge and scholarship. In other words, the university graduate should
ideally have a balanced and holistic education, which prepares them to be an effective
contributing member of the communities they are part of.
As part of a project studying academic perceptions of community engagement, a

group of researchers surveyed Australian academics, asking them to respond to and
complete the prompt, “Community Engagement is....” The findings were published
in a journal article, and the following are some of the captured responses:
“Community Engagement is based on empathy; mutuality and respect for the

sharing of life experiences within community. As unifying experiences these
might be through artful practice; be deliberating on multiple diverse languages
and literacies or through the use of sport. Ideally engagement concurs with fiscal
support from corporate agencies who value the ‘community’ and see their role as
being the advancement of corporate citizenship to lead to more community
engagement.”
“Community engagement is working in partnership to problem solve and make

decisions collaboratively.”
“Community engagement is tricky navigating ways to connect, contribute,

develop trust and build relationships. Which community/ies? What type of
engagement/s? Does it happen through invitation, imposition or....? Is it deep,
shallow, altruistic, dependent or self-seeking? Who benefits? Perseverance, fragile
affiliations, gatekeepers, blocks, power, layers, hurdles, hoops, tenuous threads –
it's not as simple or transparent as it might sound!”
“Community engagement is connecting with friends, kids, teachers, parents,

pollies [sic], policy workers, unions, organisations .... Learning with, learning from,
interrupting injustice, giving space for tiny voices to get bigger....” (Renwick, 2020)
SU1-5
From the above, we can see differing understandings of community engagement, that
is, of its purpose, its scope, as well as its approaches – all of which moreover are
dependent on the contexts of the engagement in the first place.
We can also distil similarities from those disparate responses. There is a purpose, be
it learning, resolving problems, or allowing spaces for “tiny voices” to be heard. There
is a process, i.e. usually working with a variety of stakeholders to meet a set of goals.
There are ethical and moral questions to consider, such as the reasons for engagement
in the first place, how to engage (which then touches on ethical issues of power and
responsibility, access to information), and just as critically, how to sustain beyond the
initial engagement.
1.2 Context(s) for Community Engagement
Community engagement does not happen in a vacuum. They occur in response to

circumstances, be it a short-term issue (e.g. public outreach to spread word of the
benefits of vaccination during the COVID19 pandemic) or a deeper lying structural
issue (e.g. sustaining a nation-state with diverse cultures and perspectives). To
understand this better, let us discuss an example that may be familiar to those living
and working in Singapore, the People’s Association (PA).
The People’s Association was established in 1960 “to promote racial harmony and
social cohesion in Singapore”, and that initial mission has been broadened to building
and bridging “communities in achieving one people, one Singapore”. (People’s
Association website). In the late colonial period (circa 1945 to 1965), most people living
in Singapore hailed from different cultures and nationalities, and largely kept within
their own communities. Some did not necessarily see Singapore as their home. There
was no concept of Singaporean then as we may understand it now. There was thus an
urgent need to foster a sense of community to provide a common basis for diverse and
divergent perspectives.
The urgent need has continued into present times, especially in a contemporary
Singapore that has a small population, little to no access to natural resources, and
hence a need to maintain an open economy to ensure security and a good standard of
SU1-6
living. In real terms, this means taking in immigrants and for those who wish to make
Singapore a home, a process of integration.
The PA’s mission to bring people of Singapore together is clear, as emphasised by the
phrase “Join Your Community” emblazoned in large conspicuous font on the home
page of its official website. To live up to its motto of “bringing people together”, the
PA operates a diverse range of programmes through its network of grassroots
organisations (GRO), community clubs – the successor to the original community
centres (CC), and the larger Community Development Councils (CDC). (People’s
Association website).
The scope and range of PA’s programmes facilitate a type of community engagement
specific to the context of a government agency operating in Singapore. Nevertheless,
a survey of those programmes provides a basis to not only understand community
engagement more broadly as an organising concept, but also to compare goals,
methods and principles with other community engagement initiatives.
For instance, PA’s programmes target specific sections of society, such as the elderly,
women, youths or working professionals. They facilitate discussions and activities on
issues of the day, such as lifelong learning, active ageing and emergency preparedness,
as well as on structural and/or everyday issues, such as racial harmony, integration of
new citizens and permanent residents, family life, or health and physical fitness. These
programmes reach out to thousands of individuals through the PA’s extensive
network of GROs, CCs and CDCs, which are all strategically located within or near
residential estates around Singapore.
From the above, we can discern the following elements of the PA’s approach to
community engagement. First, the target audience (or the community); second, the
issue(s) that need addressing; and third, the method of reaching out to the target
audience.
These elements can be found in a working definition of community engagement first

introduced by the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in 1997.
SU1-7
In Principles of Community Engagement, community engagement is described as:
“…the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people

affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to
address issues affecting the wellbeing of those people. It is a powerful vehicle
for bringing about environmental and behavioral [sic] changes that will
improve the health of the community and its members. It often involves
partnerships and coalitions that help mobilize resources and influence systems,
change relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for changing
policies, programs, and practices.” (CTSA, 2011).
In other words, community engagement involves individuals, driven by identified

interests and a shared purpose, working together to resolve issues affecting them as a
group. This is done by effecting or laying the ground for change via collaborations
with relevant stakeholders and/or organisations representing identified communities.
For the authors of Principles of Community Engagement, who are mostly academics and
professionals from the health and social work sectors, their original concern was
effective community engagement concerning health promotion and research. For the
People’s Association, community engagement is a significant part of the
organisation’s work in supporting the myriad aspects of Singapore’s nation-building.
Such broad and macro positions have their foundations in narrower and micro but no
less significant community engagement initiatives. This can be as simple as
volunteering at a nearby student or elder care centre, participating in a neighbourhood
watch or a parent group for schools, or facilitating team-building activities at your
workplace. Indeed, any initiative that has a clear agenda of effecting change (usually
to resolve and/or to improve) and requires a collaborative approach with multiple
stakeholders and partners to achieve agreed-upon goals, arguably has the basis for
community engagement.
SU1-8
Activity 1.1
Community engagement often starts with encountering a particular
need and/or problem. Look around your neighbourhood and/or
workplace:
 Locate instances of community engagement initiatives, e.g. a
poster, advertisement, or a physical space etc.
 Identify the initiatives’ purpose, and from there, the issue(s) the
initiatives are attempting to address.
 Reflect on what this tells you about the environment of your
neighbourhood and/or workplace.
1.3 Context(s) for Community Engagement
Principles of Community Engagement outlines nine principles that are organised into
three different stages of community engagement. They are as follow, quoted verbatim
for clarity and discussion in your seminars and assignments. (CTSA, 2011).
Before Starting an Engagement Effort
1. Be clear about the purposes or goals of the engagement effort and the
populations and/or communities you want to engage.
2. Become knowledgeable about the community’s culture, economic conditions,

social networks, political and power structures, norms and values,
demographic trends, history, and experience with efforts by outside groups to
engage it in various programs. Learn about the community’s perceptions of
those initiating the engagement activities.
For Engagement to Occur
3. Go to the community, establish relationships, build trust, work with the formal
and informal leadership, and seek commitment from community organizations
and leaders to create processes for mobilizing the community.
SU1-9
4. Remember and accept that collective self-determination is the responsibility

and right of all people in a community. No external entity should assume it can
bestow on a community the power to act in its own self-interest.
For Engagement to Succeed
5. Partnering with the community is necessary to create change and improve

health.
6. All aspects of community engagement must recognize and respect the diversity
of the community. Awareness of the various cultures of a community and other
factors affecting diversity must be paramount in planning, designing, and
implementing approaches to engaging a community.
7. Community engagement can only be sustained by identifying and mobilizing

community assets and strengths and by developing the community’s capacity
and resources to make decisions and take action.
8. Organizations that wish to engage a community as well as individuals seeking

to effect change must be prepared to release control of actions or interventions
to the community and be flexible enough to meet its changing needs.
9. Community collaboration requires long-term commitment by the engaging

organization and its partners.
1.3.1 Implications for Community Engagement
All nine principles above are self-explanatory, but it will be useful to emphasise and
reinforce some of their implications. In no order of significance:
First, community engagement is a collaboration, and related, the independence of the

engaged community should always be respected. It is not a “top-down, I tell you what
to do or how to think” approach. As noted in the eighth principle, the engaging party
“must be prepared to release control of actions or interventions to the community”.
There should also be the flexibility to adjust course as and when needed. The
objectives and process should be communicated as clearly and openly as possible, so
SU1-10
all involved are on the same page. In other words, those who hope to initiate
engagement should be clear, be aware of boundaries, and that humility goes a long
way.
Second, a successful community engagement is based on sound research, as

highlighted by the second and third principles. Research in this case does not merely
refer to diligently searching for and reading about everything that has been written
and published on the community. Knowledge of the community’s “culture, economic
conditions, social networks, political and power structures, norms and values,
demographic trends...” should ideally be complemented by knowledge of past
engagement efforts to understand the community’s position and perceptions of such
initiatives. The latter may not be documented. Hence, a more direct approach (i.e.
going to and meeting with the community personally) is more than necessary.
Meeting directly builds trust, as it allows the community to get to know the engaging
party as well.
Third, engagement should ideally aim at empowering the community. This bears
repeating as sometimes individuals and organisations may go into community
engagement with good but tactical intentions, e.g. to fulfil graduation requirements
or CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) obligations. To be clear, there is nothing
wrong with that, but such approaches may not give a foundation for communities to
address identified issues in a sustainable manner. The often-used adage of teaching a
person to fish aptly explains this point. It is more sustainable to develop the
communities’ capacities and resources for future self-learning, decision-making and
responsibility, than to leave the communities exposed and dependent on external
assistance all the time.
1.3.2 Concepts in Community Engagement
The following is also adapted from Principles of Community Engagement. This section
introduces and explains concepts that we will encounter when studying and/or
practicing community engagement. To note, these concepts and related theories were
discussed originally in the context of public health and related matters. Nevertheless,
the essence of these concepts is applicable to most other aspects of community studies.
SU1-11
Culture. Culture is a term used to describe a system of beliefs, ideas, practices, and
actions shared by a group of people, which also gives us some insight into their
perceptions of the environment around them. Familiarity with a community’s culture
is an important basis for effective engagement.
Take the publicity campaign for the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) for instance.
The PGP is a healthcare package for elderly Singaporeans, specifically those born in
1949 or earlier. (Ministry of Health PGP webpage). To reach out effectively to this
group, publicity materials in all four official languages of Singapore were produced.
Watch
Pioneer Generation Package - Ketenangan Fikiran (Malay with Eng subtitles):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC2cRw4I-WU
Pioneer Generation Package (Mandarin) - The Musical :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNHGqE1SC8w
Pioneer Generation Package - Repair Shop (Tamil with Eng Subs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGsAt2BnJic
Pioneer Generation Package – Pioneer Showtime 半斤八两 PG 版 (Cantonese with

Chinese subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9z8meqvsQo
Pioneer Generation Package - Fortune Teller (Hokkien with Eng subs):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNPXz-xwziQ
Pioneer Generation Package – Pioneer Cheer 咱是自己人 (Teochew with Chinese

subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT_7lvIcI5I
Take a look at some of the videos above. You may notice the attempts to use dressing,
references to festivals, speech patterns or musical tones associated with Malay,
Chinese and Indian cultures, or social situations that portray Singaporean culture in
SU1-12
general, such as getai, chit-chatting in a kopitiam or family situations in Housing

Development Board (HDB) flats.
For historical reasons, Chinese Singaporeans from this group may be more familiar
with Chinese dialects, such as Hokkien, Teochew or Cantonese. As such, publicity
videos and materials in those dialects were produced and disseminated on
mainstream and social media to reach out effectively to this group of Singaporeans.1
Try to imagine Singaporean (or your nationality’s) culture 50 years ahead. What do
you think are the languages and communication mediums required to get your
message(s) across?
Community Organisation. This refers to how the community organises itself

(mobilises its resources etc.) to pursue a particular goal or action, and related, to how
its members may present themselves to engaging parties. Understanding or paying
attention to who represents the community in engagement efforts, and being mindful
of whether those individuals are fully representative of the community, can help
guide and sustain deeper engagement. Usually, individuals who step forward are
more empowered and may have clearly articulated goals to achieve from engagement
efforts. We must ensure that those goals are for the community at large, and not
catered solely for individual needs. As emphasised by the Community Alliance for
Research and Engagement (CARE), “facilitating community organization cannot be
allowed to serve the needs of individual partners at the expense of the larger
community”. (CTSA, 2011).
Community Participation. This concept invites us to consider the motivations behind

participation, which can be understood as being either physically involved or the
“generation of ideas, contributions to decision making, and sharing of responsibility”.
(CTSA, 2011). Some motivations for participation include “wanting to play an active
role in bettering their own lives, fulfilling social or religious obligations, feeling a need
for a sense of community, and wanting cash or in-kind rewards.” (CTSA, 2011).
SU1-13
Arising of out of this concept is a theory of social exchange, which attempts to frame
the motivations of participants in a cost-benefit framework, i.e. the level of
participation is connected to the perceived costs or risks and benefits.
Perhaps a useful pre-engagement exercise could be a self-reflective process on our

own motivations for participating in community projects or similar. Why would we
do so? What are we looking for or hoping to obtain in return for our time and effort?
Understanding the circumstances in which we would participate could also help in
discerning the motivations of others during engagement efforts.
Capacity Building. Building capacity here refers to the “development of sustainable

skills, resources, and organizational structures in the affected community”. It does not
only refer to physical assets or material resources but also developing the skills and
resources of potential leaders and contributing members of the community, such
as ”shared knowledge, leadership skills, and an ability to represent the interests of
one’s constituents”. (CTSA, 2011).
Community Empowerment. This overlaps with capacity building, in the sense of

providing the resources, the skills, and just as importantly, the self-confidence, but
with the further objective of having control over their lives and environment.
Empowerment can be described as “a group-based participatory, developmental
process through which marginalized or oppressed individuals and groups gain
greater control over their lives and environment, acquire valued resources and basic
rights, and achieve important life goals and reduced societal marginalization.” A key
aspect of empowerment theory, echoing the fourth principle above, is that ”no
external entity should assume that it can bestow on a community the power to act in
its own self-interest.“ (CTSA, 2011). The focus rather should be on offering tools and
resources at appropriate moments that will allow the community to act on its own and
in its own interests.
Coalition Building. A coalition can be understood as “a union of people and

organizations working to influence outcomes on a specific problem”. (CTSA, 2011).
Indeed, at its very core, community engagement is coalition building. There are
several benefits from building coalitions to meet set goals, such as maximising
SU1-14
resources and avoiding the duplication of resources, maximising the impact of

participating individuals and/or organisations – allowing them to reach out to
different audiences for instance, and coming together to pool resources, collect and
discuss diverse viewpoints, from which new ideas and strategies could be generated.
Activity 1.2
This is a follow up on Activity 1.1. After identifying the community
engagement initiatives in Activity 1.1, reflect on your own experiences
living in your neighbourhood and/or working in your workplace. What
other issues you feel can also be addressed through community
engagement?
Pick one, research how that issue is approached in other similar

situations, and outline a plan that keeps in mind the principles and
concepts present in this chapter.
SU1-15
Chapter 2 Ecological Systems Theory: The Individual

in the Community
2.1 Ecology as a Model for Community
Ecology is the branch of biology that study the relations of organisms to one another
and to their natural environments. Human ecology is a branch of ecology that study
the relations of human organisms to their natural, social, and built environments. An
ecosystem is a geographic area where organisms (biotic factors – e.g., plants and
animals) interact with one another and with their natural environments (non-biotic
factors – e.g., climate and landscapes). A human ecosystem is then a geographic area
where human organisms interact with one another, with other organisms (biotic
factors), and with their natural, social, and built environments (non-biotic factors). A
community refers to a group of individuals living in the same geographic area, sharing
a natural, social, and built environment, or having an interest in common. Under the
ecological model, individuals in a community are conceived as a human ecosystem,
and engagement with individuals in a community is conceived as an interaction with
individuals in a human ecosystem.
2.2 Why Employ the Ecological Model?
Urie Bronfenbrenner, an American psychologist, advanced an ecological model in the

1970s to study human development, which is widely employed in the social sciences
ever since. He proposed the ecological model in response to what he saw as limitations
of the dominant models of his day. First, the dominant models typically assume that
there are only two people, say a parent and her child, where the former influences the
latter, and ignores the wider social context that may influence them both. Second, the
dominant models usually focus solely on the effect a single setting (e.g., home, school,
or peer group) on the child and ignores the interactions between the home, school, or
peers on the child. Third, the dominant models often include the immediate settings
that involve the child directly (e.g., home, school, or peer group) but excludes the
wider settings (e.g., parents’ occupation, the characteristics of the neighbourhood, old
and new media, the state’s social and economic policies) that do not involve the child
SU1-16
directly but nonetheless affect the immediate settings, which will in turn affect the
child in the immediate settings. Fourth, the dominant models that include the wider
settings tend to treat them as sociological givens when they can be altered, which will
alter the immediate settings, which will in turn alter the child in the immediate
settings. Bronfenbrenner affirmed that studying the interactions between the
individual and her immediate setting and the interactions between the individual’s
immediate setting and its wider setting are crucial to understanding human
development. He proposed the ecological model, which examines the individual, her
immediate settings, the wider settings, and their interactions to understand human
development better (Bronfenbrenner 1974: 3-4).
Similarly, American psychologist and social ecologist Daniel Stokols, who applied the
ecological model to public health, observed that behavioural models that define health
simply as the absence of personal illness or injury ignores issues of collective well-
being such as social cohesion and sense of community. As a result, most health
promotion programs implemented in community settings focused mainly, or even
solely, on individuals rather than environments. They aim to improve individual well-
being through modifying individuals' health habits and lifestyles (e.g., implementing
of exercise and dietary regimens) rather than enhance communal well-being through
providing environmental resources or interventions (e.g., installing better ventilation
systems to improve indoor air quality, safer stairways to reduce falls and injuries, free
and accessible physical fitness facilities at public places). He proposed to develop an
ecological analysis of health promotion that is grounded in a holistic view of human
health and well-being (Stokols 1992: 6-7).
2.3 Core Principles of the Ecological Model
Stokols (1996: 285-286) proposes four core principles of the ecological model that can
contribute to community engagement efforts in the context of health promotion
(which can be extended to other contexts):
First, the ecological model characterises a community setting as having multiple

environmental factors such as physical, social, and geographic factors that can
influence multiple communal engagement efforts. For example, environmental factors
SU1-17
such as physical health status, developmental maturation, emotional well-being, and

social cohesion influence health promotion efforts. The health-promotive capacity of
an environment is understood, not narrowly in terms of an impact of a single factor,
say, geographical factor such as climate, air, and water quality, but more broadly as a
combination of impacts of multiple environmental factors, on the physical, emotional,
and social well-being of individuals over a particular period.
Second, the ecological model views individual well-being as being influenced not only
by multiple environmental factors, but also by multiple personal factors, including
genetic inheritance, psychological dispositions, and behavioral patterns. It examines
the dynamic interactions between environmental and personal factors instead of
focusing on a single environmental or personal factor, or either a set of environmental
factors or a set of personal factors in isolation from the other factors. For example, the
same environmental factor (e.g., population density, economic recession, or social
isolation) may affect the health of everyone in the community differently, depending
on his or her personality, perception of environmental controllability, health practices,
and financial resources.
Third, the ecological model emphasises the interdependence of environmental factors

within a community setting, the interactions among multiple community settings, and
their impacts on individual well-being. The physical, social, and geographic factors of
a community setting are assumed to be interrelated and capable of exerting separate
as well as concerted effects on individual well-being. Moreover, the multiple settings
of human activity (e.g., one’s home, neighbourhood, workplace, and country) are seen
as nested structures where smaller, proximate local settings are embedded within
larger, remote settings. Thus, to be effective, health promotion efforts must consider
the interdependence between the more immediate and the more distant settings (e.g.,
the “spill-over” of occupational and commutative stresses to residential settings and
the influence of state policies on the health practices of occupational settings).
Fourth, the ecological model adopts an inherently interdisciplinary approach to

community engagement. For example, it integrates the community-level preventive
measures of epidemiology with the individual-level curative measures of medicine
and incorporates multi-level analyses and diverse methodologies (e.g., health surveys,
SU1-18
behavioral observations, environmental recordings, epidemiologic analyses, and

clinical examinations) for assessing the well-being of individuals and groups in
community settings.
2.4 Bronfrenbrenner’s Ecological Model
The most widely applied ecological model is developed by Bronfrenbrenner to explain

human development. Bronfrenbrenner’s ecological model of human development
(widely known as “the ecological systems theory”) examines “the progressive, mutual
accommodation, throughout the life span, between a growing human organism and the
changing immediate environments in which it lives, as this process is affected by relations
obtaining within and between these immediate settings, as well as the larger social contexts,
both formal and informal, in which the settings are embedded”, where “the ecological
environment is conceived topologically as a nested arrangement of structures, each contained
within the next” (Bronfrenbrenner 1977: 514). His ecological model comprises the
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, with each nested within the
next, which can be presented graphically as follows:
Macrosystem
Exosystem
Mesosystem
Microsystem
Individual
A microsystem refers to the immediate environment or setting that an individual

directly interacts with, such as her home, school, neighbourhood, or workplace. A
setting is defined as “a place with particular physical features in which the participants
engage in particular activities in particular roles (e.g., daughter, parent, teacher, employee, etc.)
SU1-19
for particular periods of time. The factors of place, time, physical features, activity, participant,
and role constitute the elements of a setting” (Bronfrenbrenner 1977: 514). The
microsystem influences and is influenced by an individual through her relationships
and experiences with other individuals that occur within it.
A mesosystem refers to the interactions among the microsystems or immediate

settings that contains the individual at a particular point in her life, such as the
relationship between her family and school, family and neighbourhood, school and
neighbourhood etc., where her relationships and experiences within one setting (e.g.,
family) can spill over into another setting (e.g., school). The mesosystem influences
and is influenced by the interactions among the immediate settings or microsystems
that occur within it. In short, a mesosystem is a system of microsystems.
An exosystem refers to the larger social contexts, both formal and informal, that do
not directly contain, interact with, and influence the individual, but indirectly through
the mesosystems that contain, interact with, and influence the microsystems that the
individual is in. According to Bronfrenbrenner, the exosystem includes “the major
institutions of the society, both deliberately structured and spontaneously evolving, as they
operate at a concrete local level. They encompass, among other structures, the world of work,
the neighborhood, the mass media, agencies of government (local, state, and national), the
distribution of goods and services, communication and transportation facilities, and informal
social networks” (Bronfrenbrenner 1977: 515). The exosystem can affect the individual
indirectly through directly affecting the conditions of and resources available to the
mesosystem and in turn the microsystem that she is in.
A macrosystem, in Bronfrenbrenner’s words, refers to “the overarching institutional

patterns of the culture or subculture, such as the economic, social, educational, legal, and
political systems, of which micro-, meso-, and exosystems are the concrete manifestations.
Macrosystems are conceived and examined not only in structural terms but as carriers of
information and ideology that, both explicitly and implicitly, endow meaning and motivation
to particular agencies, social networks, roles, activities, and their interrelations”
(Bronfrenbrenner 1977: 515). The macrosystem does not only affect the other systems
it contains and all the way down to the beliefs, values, and behaviors of the individual,
albeit indirectly, the macrosystem itself may alter as the members behind it are
SU1-20
replaced, as expressed by the third core principle of the ecological model discussed
above, emphasising the reciprocal nature of the interactions between the individual
and her immediate settings, and the interactions between the immediate settings and
the larger social contexts in turn.
2.5 McLeroy’s Ecological Model
K.R. McLeroy and colleagues developed a variation on Bronfrenbrenner's ecological

model (widely known as “the social ecological model”) and applied it to public health
(McLeroy Et Al 1988). Like Bronfrenbrenner’s model, McLeroy’s model examines the
interactions between the more immediate individual factors and the broader social
factors and how they influence health-related behavior and outcomes, and recognises
that individuals are embedded within layered, interrelated systems that mutually
influence one another. Their model consists of the intrapersonal factors, interpersonal
processes and primary groups, institutional factors, community factors, and public
policy, which can be presented graphically as follows:
Public Policy
Community Factors
Institutional Factors
Interpersonal Processes
& Primary Groups
Intrapersonal Factors
Intrapersonal factors refer to individual characteristics such as attitudes, beliefs,

knowledge, skills, genes, health, and lifestyle that influence individual health-related
behaviour and outcomes. For example, to understand the smoking behaviour of an
individual, intrapersonal factors include one’s attitude towards and beliefs about
SU1-21
smoking (e.g., smoking looks cool and relieves stress), the addictive effects of smoking
on one’s body, and to discourage smoking behaviour, intrapersonal factors include
changing one’s attitudes and beliefs about smoking (e.g., letting one know that
smoking affects one’s role as a parent and household health negatively and that
smoking increases one’s anxiety and tension rather than relieves one’s stress).
Interpersonal processes and primary groups refer to an individual’s immediate social

networks, relationships, and support systems, both formal and informal, including
relatives, friends, schoolmates, and workgroups that influence one’s health-related
behaviour and outcomes. For example, to understand the smoking behaviour of an
individual, both family and peer influences on her smoking behaviour must be taken
into account; to discourage smoking behaviour, both family members and peers
(including friends, schoolmates, or colleagues) can serve as role models and provide
emotional support.
Institutional factors refer to the policies and practices of institutions and organisations
(formal and informal rules and regulations). Institutions and organisations include
schools, workplaces, commercial buildings, community groups, healthcare facilities
that influence individual health-related behaviour and outcomes. For example, to
understand the smoking behaviour of an individual, the smoking-related policies and
practices of institutions and organisations must be taken into account; to discourage
smoking behaviour, schools and healthcare institutions can ban smoking at or near
their vicinity whereas workplaces and commercial buildings can make it inconvenient
to smoke either at or near their vicinity.
McLeroy et al (1988: 363) offers three definitions of community and communal factors
influence individual health-related behaviour and outcomes in different ways,
depending on which definition is adopted. The first refers to mediating structures or
primary groups which individuals belong to such as families, friends, neighbours, and
colleagues, similar to Brofenbrenner's mesosystem. Mediating structures inform social
norms and values and individuals' attitudes and beliefs. As mediating structures
connect individuals with their wider social environment, they play a crucial role in
shaping individual behaviour, including health-related ones such as smoking. The
second refers to the social relations among institutions and organisations within a
SU1-22
particular area. Coordination, or the lack of it, among institutions and organisations
can affect health-related behaviour and outcomes significantly. For example, the
combined effort of parents setting a good example by not smoking at home, schools
banning smoking at their premises, retailers checking the age of the cigarette buyers,
commercial buildings designating smoke-free areas, contributes significantly towards
reducing if not eliminating cigarette consumption among youths. The third refers to
the power structures or relations among institutions and organisations within a
particular area. Power structures play a critical role in defining and evaluating public
health problems, as well as allocating resources – material, financial, manpower,
technical – to solve those problems, and hence affect health-related behaviour and
outcomes. Since public health problems and their solutions can have serious political
and economic consequences for different groups in the community, the interests of
different groups in the community, including conflicting ones, must be addressed. For
example, smoking is not only a health issue but also a political and economic issue. A
blanket ban on cigarettes may lead to an overall improvement in public health, but a
decrease in sales revenue for cigarette manufacturers and retailers and in tax revenue
for the government, as well as protests from the smoking population.
Public policy refers to state laws, policies, rules, and regulations. It includes broad
societal factors such as state ideology, national culture, cultural norms, economic
factors such as taxation and government spending, socio-economic factors such as
discrimination or inequality. One defining characteristic of public policy is that it
targets the population rather than individuals. For example, to improve the public
health of the population, the Singapore government prohibits smoking in shops,
universities, vocational facilities, cultural facilities, and hospitals and other healthcare
facilities, bans all advertising of tobacco products, and requires packaging of tobacco
products to include prominent both pictorial and textual health warnings.
Like Bronfrenbrenner’s model, McLeroy’s model emphasises the interconnectedness

and mutual influence among the different factors and acknowledges that changes in
one of the factors can have ripple effects on the other factors. A simpler variant of
McLeroy’s model can be found in Krug & Dahlberg (2002) and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (2007).
SU1-23
2.6 Applying the Ecological Model to Community

Engagement
Applying the ecological model to community engagement involves identifying and

examining each system in the layered and interrelated systems that affects community
engagement. Examples of the influence of each system on communal engagement
based on Bronfrenbrenner’s model are as follow:
System Example
Individual As individuals lie at the centre of the community and surrounding

systems, community engagement efforts that address individual-
level factors can help or hinder community participation. For
example, a community initiative seeking to increase voter turnout
in local elections can implement measures that reduce or remove
individual barriers to voting. It includes conducting voter education
workshops to enhance individuals' knowledge of the electoral
process and their voting rights, as well as the importance and
impact of voting. Implementing individual-level measures
empowers community members and encourages them to
participate in the electoral process.
Microsystem In the microsystem, community engagement involves direct

interactions between individuals and their immediate settings
within the community. It includes grassroots organisations,
neighbourhood committees, and community initiatives. For
example, a local community centre can organise town hall meetings
where residents convene to discuss communal concerns including
crime, education, or infrastructure. Such face-to-face dialogues
SU1-24
engender a sense of belonging, foster social cohesion, and facilitate

collaboration among community members.
Mesosystem In the mesosystem, community engagement involves interactions

among the different microsystem settings. It includes coordination
among community organisations, schools, businesses, and local
government agencies. For example, a community collaboration
comprising various stakeholders, including teachers, parents,
government agencies, and businesses can co-develop after-school
care and tuition services. Collaboration among the different settings
can widen the support networks available to members of the
community and enhance the effectiveness of community
engagement efforts.
Exosystem In the exosystem, community engagement involves interactions

with the wider social settings that indirectly influence the
community but are external to it. It includes external institutions,
policies, and resources that can affect community initiatives. For
example, a community initiative on environmental sustainability
can collaborate with regional environmental agencies to apply for a
grant from a national environmental organisation. The involvement
of external entities offers additional funding, expertise, and even
legitimacy to the community engagement efforts, thereby
enhancing their effectiveness.
Macrosystem The macrosystem comprises the socio-cultural, political-legal, and

historical contexts that shape community engagement. It can
include cultural values, political ideologies, and historical
contingencies. For example, when engaging a culturally diverse
community, an effective community engagement approach would
consider the values, norms, customs, traditions, and
communication styles of the different cultural groups to ensure
inclusivity and encourage participation. The recognition of and
SU1-25
respect for the diverse cultural backgrounds within the community

can promote inclusive engagement and strengthen social cohesion.
Applying the ecological model to community engagement helps in recognizing and

understanding the multi-systemic influences on individuals in the community and the
interconnections of the various nested systems within and outside the community.
Community engagement initiatives informed by the ecological model can empower
individuals, strengthen social networks, leverage organisational capacities, advocate
for supportive policies, and thereby lead to positive community outcomes and social
change.
2.7 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ecological Model
One strength of the ecological model lies in its holistic or systemic approach: it not
only includes individual factors and environmental factors but also the interactions
between individual and environmental factors in examining communal problems and
solutions. A related strength is that it avoids conceptual "blind spots" resulting from
focusing exclusively on either the individual factors or environmental factors.
One weakness of the ecological model is that it is overly demanding to apply

adequately as it requires the integration of theories and methods of multiple
disciplines and close coordination among individuals and groups from different
sectors of the community. Another weakness is that it is overly inclusive, such that it
becomes practically impossible to assess the contribution of one factor to the
communal problem or solution in isolation from the rest (Stokol 1996: 288).
SU1-26
Activity 2.1
In section 2.2, both Bronfenbrenner and McLeroy developed the ecological model
due to the limitations of the dominant or behavioural model. Read the below
article:
https://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/article/defeating-depression-with-
resilience
And address these limitations using either Bronfenbrenner’s or McLeroy’s

ecological model.
Activity 2.2
Read the below articles:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/new-community-initiative-to-support-
caregivers-of-persons-with-disabilities-to-pilot-in
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/promoting-mental-wellness-a-
kampung-effort-in-the-community
And apply either Bronfrenbrenner’s or McLeroy’s ecological model to one of the

above community initiatives.
SU1-27
2.8 Summary
In this chapter, we learnt the following:
 According to the ecological model, individuals in a community are conceived

as a human ecosystem, and engagement with individuals in a community is
conceived as an interaction with individuals in a human ecosystem.
 Four core principles of the ecological model can contribute to community

engagement efforts:
o First, the ecological model characterises a community setting as having

multiple environmental factors.
o Second, the ecological model views individual well-being as being

influenced by both environmental and personal factors.
o Third, the ecological model emphasises the interdependence and

interactions among environmental factors.
o Fourth, the ecological model adopts an inherently interdisciplinary

approach to community engagement.
 Bronfrenbrenner’s ecological model of human development comprises the

microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, with each nested
within the next.
 McLeroy’s ecological model of public health consists of the intrapersonal

factors, interpersonal processes and primary groups, institutional factors,
community factors, and public policy, with each nested within the next.
 Applying the ecological model to community engagement involves identifying

and examining each system in the layered and interrelated systems that affects
community engagement.
 The strength of the ecological model lies in its holistic or systemic approach,
which avoids conceptual "blind spots".
SU1-28
 The weakness of the ecological model is that it is overly inclusive and hence
overly demanding to apply adequately.
SU1-29
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1974. “Developmental Research, Public Policy, and the Ecology of

Childhood.” Child Development, 45(1): 1-5.
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1977. “Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development.”

American Psychologist, 32(7): 513-531.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. “The Social-Ecological Model: A
Framework for Prevention.” Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Available online:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html
Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium’s Community

Engagement Key Function Committee. 2011. Principles of Community Engagement
(Second Edition). Available online:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/index.html
Krug E., Dahlberg L. 2002. “Violence – A Global Public Health Problem.” In World
Report on Violence and Health, edited by E. Krug, L. Dahlberg, J. Mercy, A. Zwi, and
R. Lozano: 1-56. World Health Organization.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. 1988. “An Ecological Perspective
on Health Promotion Programs.” Health Education Quarterly, 15(4): 351-377.
Renwick, K., Selkrig, M., Manathunga, C., & Keamy, R. “Kim.” 2020. Community
engagement is ... : revisiting Boyer’s model of scholarship. Higher Education
Research and Development, 39(6), 1232–1246.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1712680
Stokols, D. 1992. “Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Environments Toward a

Social Ecology of Health Promotion.” The American Psychologist, 47(1): 6-22
Stokols, D. 1996. “Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for

Community Health Promotion.” American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4): 282-
298.
SU1-30

NCO101 Study Unit 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCO101 Study Unit 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study Unit 1

By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. Describe the principles of community engagement

2. Explain how to engage the community ethically and effectively

3. Discuss ecological systems theory

4. Apply ecological systems theory

Study Unit 1 provides a conceptual and methodical foundation to address issues

Chapter 1 Approaches to Community Engagement

1.1 Why Engage

Community engagement is a relatively new organising concept used to describe a

Community engagement is gaining traction due to an increasing awareness that the

Correspondingly, there is also the acknowledgement that if education and scholarship

As part of a project studying academic perceptions of community engagement, a

“Community Engagement is based on empathy; mutuality and respect for the

“Community engagement is working in partnership to problem solve and make

“Community engagement is tricky navigating ways to connect, contribute,

“Community engagement is connecting with friends, kids, teachers, parents,

1.2 Context(s) for Community Engagement

Community engagement does not happen in a vacuum. They occur in response to

These elements can be found in a working definition of community engagement first

In Principles of Community Engagement, community engagement is described as:

“…the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people

In other words, community engagement involves individuals, driven by identified

1.3 Context(s) for Community Engagement

Before Starting an Engagement Effort

2. Become knowledgeable about the community’s culture, economic conditions,

For Engagement to Occur

4. Remember and accept that collective self-determination is the responsibility

For Engagement to Succeed

5. Partnering with the community is necessary to create change and improve

7. Community engagement can only be sustained by identifying and mobilizing

8. Organizations that wish to engage a community as well as individuals seeking

9. Community collaboration requires long-term commitment by the engaging

1.3.1 Implications for Community Engagement

First, community engagement is a collaboration, and related, the independence of the

Second, a successful community engagement is based on sound research, as

1.3.2 Concepts in Community Engagement

Pioneer Generation Package - Ketenangan Fikiran (Malay with Eng subtitles):

Pioneer Generation Package (Mandarin) - The Musical :

Pioneer Generation Package - Repair Shop (Tamil with Eng Subs)

Pioneer Generation Package – Pioneer Showtime 半斤八两 PG 版 (Cantonese with

Pioneer Generation Package - Fortune Teller (Hokkien with Eng subs):

Pioneer Generation Package – Pioneer Cheer 咱是自己人 (Teochew with Chinese

general, such as getai, chit-chatting in a kopitiam or family situations in Housing

Community Organisation. This refers to how the community organises itself

Community Participation. This concept invites us to consider the motivations behind

Perhaps a useful pre-engagement exercise could be a self-reflective process on our

Capacity Building. Building capacity here refers to the “development of sustainable

Community Empowerment. This overlaps with capacity building, in the sense of

Coalition Building. A coalition can be understood as “a union of people and

resources and avoiding the duplication of resources, maximising the impact of

Pick one, research how that issue is approached in other similar

Chapter 2 Ecological Systems Theory: The Individual

2.1 Ecology as a Model for Community

2.2 Why Employ the Ecological Model?

Urie Bronfenbrenner, an American psychologist, advanced an ecological model in the

2.3 Core Principles of the Ecological Model

First, the ecological model characterises a community setting as having multiple

such as physical health status, developmental maturation, emotional well-being, and

Third, the ecological model emphasises the interdependence of environmental factors

Fourth, the ecological model adopts an inherently interdisciplinary approach to

behavioral observations, environmental recordings, epidemiologic analyses, and

2.4 Bronfrenbrenner’s Ecological Model

The most widely applied ecological model is developed by Bronfrenbrenner to explain