Thermal performance of screen mesh wick heat pipes with nanofluids

This article was downloaded by: [Christine Rine]On: 26 January 2012, At: 05:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Human Behavior in the SocialEnvironmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whum20

A Review and Application of ExistingTheories in Neighborhood Research:Toward a Model for Social Work PracticeChristine Rine a & Robin Hartinger-Saunders ba Social Work Department, Plymouth State University, Plymouth,New Hampshire, USAb School of Social Work, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia,USA

Available online: 24 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Christine Rine & Robin Hartinger-Saunders (2012): A Review and Application ofExisting Theories in Neighborhood Research: Toward a Model for Social Work Practice, Journal ofHuman Behavior in the Social Environment, 22:1, 39-53

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.598825

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whum20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.598825

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22:39–53, 2012

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online

DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2011.598825

A Review and Application of Existing Theoriesin Neighborhood Research: Toward a Model

for Social Work Practice

CHRISTINE RINESocial Work Department, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, New Hampshire, USA

ROBIN HARTINGER-SAUNDERSSchool of Social Work, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

The application of existing theory in regard to assessing and ad-

dressing neighborhoods from a social work perspective is largely

unexplored. Current theories informing neighborhood-level inter-

ventions draw little on social work literature. The purpose of this

paper is to explore literature from varied fields to assess their

utility and inform neighborhood-level intervention methods for

social workers. Examining neighborhood theory from all fields and

comparing it to those most commonly used in social work is helpful

to understanding how practitioners can advance this work and

research.

KEYWORDS Neighborhood research, theory; social work practice,

ecological, social comparison, culture of poverty, social disorgani-

zation, functionalist, classical, conflict

INTRODUCTION

The identification, application, and support of theories in micro- and mezzo-level interventions are frequently tested and well established. However,the use of theory to examine neighborhood context from a social workperspective is largely unexplored. There are few theoretical models inform-ing neighborhood level research grounded in the field of social work. Forexample, broad interpretations of the ecological perspective and systemstheory may be applicable; however, they lack the specificity needed to com-

Address correspondence to Christine Rine, Social Work Department, Plymouth State

University, 17 High Street, Plymouth, NH 03264, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012

40 C. Rine and R. Hartinger-Saunders

prehensively assess neighborhood context. Therefore, a multidisciplinaryreview of theoretical literature was explored and their utility assessed in aneffort to inform neighborhood–level intervention methods for social workapplications. This is helpful in advancing our understanding of how practi-tioners and researchers can proceed with the development of a neighbor-hood research framework. The following article presents an overview of thehistorical context of neighborhood research and critically analyzes multiplerelated theories for utility in social work practice.

SOCIAL WORKS ATTENTION TO NEIGHBORHOOD

CONTEXT: PRACTICE AND THEORY

Since the field of social work began more than 100 years ago, the profes-sion recognized that neighborhood and environmental conditions greatlyinfluence those who reside within these spaces. These influences impact in-dividual behaviors, social functioning, and various interpersonal issues whilesimultaneously contributing the segregation of opportunities and resourcesthat are more or less afforded to individuals based on where they live. Thebasis for this practice approach can be recognized in the efforts of earlysocial work pioneers such as Jane Addams, Mary Richmond, and BerthaCapen Reynolds. A clear example of attention to neighborhood contextwas demonstrated in the work of the Jane Addams Hull House project inconjunction with the Chicago School of Sociology. In this project, socialworkers were responsible for mapping the areas they sought to serve withrespect to individual variables such as nationality and weekly wage. Theseearly efforts demonstrate social work’s commitment to understanding theimportance of social and environmental factors in casework efforts. However,these foci waned as the profession evolved with more attention given to thedelivery of individualized social services.

Similarly, early theoretical approaches in social work informed neigh-borhood research applications as demonstrated in the efforts of Bertha CapenReynolds. Reynolds was the first to bring conflict theory to practice byapplying Marxist analysis to better understand social problems stemmingfrom oppression (Freedberg, 1984, 1986; Hartman, 1986). Her concern forsocial justice, peace, and coalition building offered much to the notion thatsocial change at grass roots levels of intervention is a valid and tenablerole for social workers. Further, Reynolds’s application of theory to examinesocial problems afforded a way for practitioners to better understand theenvironmental context of clients. These early social work approaches soughtto improve social conditions to influence micro-level change for individualproblems such as emotional and mental health concerns, economic hard-ships, barriers to opportunities, family conflict, and child and adolescent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012

Neighborhood Research 41

behavioral problems (Joseph, 1986; Lee, 1996; Reynolds, 1951). Unfortu-nately, the focus and growth of both neighborhood research and theorydevelopment in social work practice was stunted and never fully revived.

Neighborhood Theory Development

Sociology was one of the earliest disciplines to share similar views to thatof social work with regard to their focus on neighborhood-level variables tounderstand the connection between environmental conditions and individualand group functioning. Most notable among this early burgeoning researchwas that of criminologists Shaw and McKay (1942) who are viewed as pio-neers in their field. Their seminal contributions examined high rates of crimecommitted by youths in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. In response to publicoutcry, they were the first to examine associations between neighborhoodfactors and juvenile crime. Shaw and McKay were quick to identify thecontextual factors associated with individual problems. Their early theoriesand methods in addressing how neighborhoods work are still used and heav-ily referenced today among various literatures that examine neighborhoodeffects. Specifically, Shaw and McKay used Chicago’s delinquency rates tomap differences while concurrently assessing the neighborhood contexts andcorresponding characteristics of neighborhoods. Later, urban sociologistsHirschi (1969) and Sampson (1993) advanced the idea that neighborhoodcontext is fundamental to understanding and preventing antisocial behaviorin young people. Studies by these and other investigators planted the seedsfor the most current research aimed at understanding the effects of neigh-borhoods. The work of these innovative social scientists in their varied fieldsremain the basis for neighborhood research today (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan,& Aber, 1997). In the past 15 years, research identifying neighborhoodinfluences on the outcomes of individuals has increased significantly. Thisrenewed interest in neighborhood research is cause to examine theories inthis area to determine their utility in social work practice.

Neighborhood Research: Contemporary Applications

Contemporary neighborhood research has emerged from the contributions ofmultiple disciplines including sociology, anthropology, urban planning, ge-ography, public health, psychology, and social work. This cross-disciplinaryapproach to better understand neighborhood effects both enriches and com-plicates this area of study. The field is enriched due to the merging ofvarying perspectives, challenging us to consider issues that we may not havewithin our separate disciplines. However, neighborhood research becomessomewhat complicated as there is a great deal of divergence among variousdefinitions of neighborhood, the effects of neighborhood that are of interestto various disciplines, and their subsequent methodology. Regardless, these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


varying approaches often inform and complement each other. For example,psychology, criminal justice, public health, and social work appear to ex-amine the individual and group outcomes related to neighborhood. Otherdisciplines such as anthropology, urban planning, geography, business, andmarketing often focus on other aspects related to the concept of neighbor-hood. Additionally, business and marketing fields examine neighborhood tobetter understand buying patterns, supply and demand trends, and variousactuarial considerations. However, many of these fields have a branch ofapplied study devoted to how environments affect people (see, for exam-ple, Bandura, 1977; Korbin & Coulton, 1997; Korbin, Coulton, Chard, Platt-Houston, & Su, 1998; Merton, 1938; Park & Burgess, 1921; Sampson, 1997;Seidman et al., 1998).

Examining Neighborhoods: The Natural Fit to Social Work

Conceptualizing the breadth of contemporary neighborhood research withthe purposes of social work applications requires a framework from whichto approach this task. The ecological perspective offers such a frameworkthat has many benefits for both neighborhood research and social work.First, it is a logical match as it embodies the foundation of social worktheory (Ungar, 2002). The ecological perspective charges us to focus onthe person-in-environment fit that is decidedly social work in its very na-ture. Additionally, the ecological perspective sets social work apart fromother disciplines that have overlapping areas of both practice and research.Culminating these points, the ecological perspective provides practitionersthe ability to draw connections between a neighborhood application of thisperspective and one of direct or micro-practice that can be more easilyappreciated. A very basic understanding of the ecological perspective inthe framework of neighborhood research asks one to look outside of theindividual person, small group, and finite set of processes that go on insidethese micro-realms to better understand what affects individuals from a largervantage point (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

From this umbrella of conceptualization, a broad range of distinct the-oretical perspectives have emerged both within and among various disci-plines that have conducted neighborhood research. These varied approachesshare the basic fundamentals of the ecological perspective while expandingand progressing these ideals to provide specific insight into particular areasof neighborhood study. Therefore, they afford more rigorous models anddiscipline-driven ways to look at neighborhoods than the ecological per-spective can singularly provide. Social comparison, culture of poverty, socialdisorganization, functionalist, classical, and conflict theories each contributeto a more comprehensive understanding of social issues. It is important tonote that while these theories are more specific to neighborhoods than theecological perspective, they are broad within their ability to explain various

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


aspects and interactions among individuals, groups, processes, structures,and the interactions of varied societal influences such as politics, economics,poverty, physical and mental health, and other facets of life in context.

For example, a broad understanding of the ecological perspective asapplied to neighborhood research suggests that we consider neighborhoodsas something that can affect individuals. Conversely, various fields of so-cial science, under an ecological perspective, have viewed neighborhood,regardless of how it is defined, as important in shaping the behaviors, out-comes, and processes of those who constitute these spatially and sociallydefined spaces. Although the scope and aim of research in this area is diverse,commonalities exist among the social sciences (Bandura, 1977; Bogenschnei-der, 1996; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Bursik, 1986; Greve,2002; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991; Kasarda, 1972;Lewis, 1966; Merton, 1938; Sampson & Morenoff, 1997; Shaw, 1929; Siegel& Senna, 1981; Sly & Tayman, 1980; Wilson, 1987; Wright, 1994).

The Complexity of Defining Neighborhood

How we define neighborhood has been a limitation since the inception ofneighborhood research. Similarly, theories define neighborhood differently;while some focus on interactions between people and subsequent socialdynamics, others focus on structural, spatial, and organizational componentsof neighborhood (Bandura, 1977; Bogenschneider, 1996; Bronfenbrenner,1979; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Bursik, 1986; Greve, 2002; Jencks & Mayer,1990; Jessor et al., 1991; Kasarda, 1972; Lewis, 1966; Merton, 1938; Sampson& Morenoff, 1997; Shaw, 1929; Siegel & Senna, 1981; Sly & Tayman, 1980;Wilson, 1987; Wright, 1994). Further confounding a clear understanding ofhow neighborhood is defined is the differentiation between neighborhoodand community. Often these terms are used interchangeably in researchand in discussions about neighborhoods. Theories define these constructsin a different manner, some having more overlap than others while alsodiffering within and among fields of study. For example, functionalist theorymay propose that community is temporal, arising out of a need within aspatially defined neighborhood. Conversely, conflict theory may describecommunity as a technique developed by the owners or ruling class to controlthe population and indoctrinate the concept of all Americans living togetherin harmony and working together, thus masking the exploitation that is reallytaking place (Merton, 1938; Siegel & Senna, 1981; Wright, 1994).

The alternative to delineating physical boundaries to define neighbor-hood is to divorce community from place. If it can be agreed that com-munity broadly involves the existence or ability to obtain support, socia-bility, information, and a sense of belonging from others, it is possiblethat this community can be acquired from those who do not live withinthe same neighborhood. Thus, community does not equal neighborhood,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


and neighborhood does not ensure community. Wellman (2000) called thisphenomenon community liberated where neighborhood is not needed toreap community benefits. From this perspective, neighborhood needs a placewhereas community does not. Hence, neighborhood research across disci-plines overwhelmingly defines neighborhood as a geographically definedplace utilizing spatially defined variables as the unit of analysis. The studyof perceptions or feelings of community is a distinct, yet sometimes overlap-ping, category among social science literature. Similarly, how residents spa-tially define their neighborhood is critical, however; it is often unrealistic forstudy purposes to consider perceived neighborhood demarcations outside ofeasily assessed definitions such as census tracks or block groups. Therefore,research that measures neighborhood based on individual perception islimited.

Categorization of Theoretical Models:

Organizing Perspectives

Overall, six major theoretical categories in the field of neighborhood researchwere reviewed. Within each of these categories, many different theoreticalmodels have developed, each having varying degrees of specificity andapplicability to larger and more varied social problems and areas of socialscience. Figure 1 outlines six theoretical categories and their related models.Note that there is interaction between and among many of these modelsthat is not visually represented as this discussion is beyond the scope ofthis paper. Further, from thorough review and analysis of these theories,it appears that different disciplines apply these theories differently. Thesedifferences account for some variation in the literature presented.

Theory Analysis

As demonstrated in Figure 1, all have had some success in the developmentof theoretical models aimed at identifying neighborhood influences on theindividuals and groups who reside within them. Additionally, all of these the-ories have had some empirical support with similar results. Overall, findingssuggest that particular characteristics, functions, structures, and processes ofneighborhood are important to understanding their impact on the individualswho reside within these spaces. However, it is the lens through whichresearch is conducted, findings are interpreted, and assumptions are madethat is very different. Further, all of these theories have limitations tiedto their assumptions. For example, social disorganization theory may beuseful in examining associations between neighborhood quality and socialprocesses of organization; however, it is not far-reaching enough to explainthe influence of economics, poverty, urban structure, allocation of publicresources, and subsequent access to resources as does classical and conflict

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012

FIG

UR

E1

Theore

tica

lca

tegories

and

models

rela

ted

toneig

hborh

ood

rese

arch

.

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


theories. Further, social disorganization assumes that organization is prefer-able as disorganization has negative consequences for neighborhoods. Thisperspective is at odds with conflict theory as it contends that disagreementand conflict are a necessary and fundamental piece of neighborhood changethat can bring about improvements. In this respect, social disorganizationcan be viewed as static, favoring the status quo of an environment, whilethe more dynamic conflict theory is action-oriented in its tenets and moreclosely aligned with social change. The following analysis of these theoriessuggests that some may provide a more productive approach for particularneighborhood research topics, areas of intervention, and social work thanothers.

Social Comparison

Although there are four different theories nested under the broader socialcomparison theory, their approaches are similar. They all stress, to varyingdegrees, the human desire to fit into a group, thus reaping the benefits ofbelonging, most often accomplished through conforming to the attitudes andbehaviors of that group (Ajzen, 1987; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973; Lewin, 1951).Research developed from a social comparison perspective has found thatyoung people often copy the behaviors and mimic the attitudes of peers andadults in their social networks (Ajzen & Fishbein; Anderson, 1999; Sampson& Bartuch, 1998). For example, social learning theory has provided a basis forunderstanding intergenerational deviant and criminal attitudes, values, andnorms within neighborhoods (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002).However, a critical analysis of this perspective may lead one to question howthese attitudes and behaviors were formed and through what economic orsocial processes they are enforced. Therefore, from a social work perspective,social comparison theory fails to address the neighborhood characteristics inthemselves that perpetuate the circumstances in which social comparisongrows pathologically (see Table 1).

Culture of Poverty

Somewhat similar to social comparison theories, the culture of poverty theoryasserts that behaviors and attitudes are so widespread that they have becomeself-perpetuating norms (Lewis, 1966). Within this theory, these norms createa self-sustaining cycle stemming from adaptation to the experiences of livingin poverty that transforms individuals in the process. Additionally, theseexperiences bring about a unique culture with a different set of valuesthan other economic groups. Features of individual and group attitudesand feelings experienced through the lens of the culture of poverty theoryinclude alienation, marginality, dependence, inferiority, and lack of self-worth. Additionally, these attitudes are often manifested in feelings that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


TABLE 1 Questions of Interest to Social Work in Relation to Neighborhood Research

Theory Unanswered questions

Social comparison What is it about neighborhood characteristics that perpetuatesthe circumstances in which social comparison growspathologically?

Culture of poverty What neighborhood characteristics contribute to the culture ofpoverty and whom does it serve?

Social disorganization What mechanisms shape the structures and processes thatconstitute the formation of community life?

Functionalist How is acceptance of particular behaviors formed and how mayit be reformed or changed through social work interventions?

Classical How is the system of consequences formed and managed?Conflict How is neighborhood consensus formed and how does it

represent class interest? What does this mean for social work?

government and institutions do not meet or do not attempt to meet theirneeds. Although this theory provides a great deal of descriptive power, itlacks the ability to explain how the process of cultural transformation occursand under what conditions it manifests (Goode & Eames, 1996). From asocial work perspective, understanding which neighborhood characteristicscontributed to this process and knowing whom they serve is a componentthat fails to be explained by the culture of poverty theory (see Table 1).

Social Disorganization

Social disorganization theory, best described by Sampson (1997) as the ability‘‘of a community to realize the common values of its residents and maintaineffective controls’’ (p. 34), focuses on the structure and processes of com-munity life in shaping individual and group outcomes. Similar to cultureof poverty, social disorganization theory asserts that the manner in whichpeople interact with their environment shapes their thinking and attitudes.Where it differs from other theories is in the way social disorganizationexplains how this attitude shaping occurs. While culture of poverty attemptsto explain attitude shaping as happening through a transformation, socialdisorganization theory uses language of plant ecology and Darwinian evolu-tion to explain how this works. Within social disorganization, an individual’sability to realize values and controls is dependent on the processes withina neighborhood. For example, a good deal of research has been conductedin this area that has advanced the idea that neighborhoods lacking socialorganization may also be those with greater amounts of transiency, hencepreventing them from achieving feelings of collective efficacy (Sampsonet al., 2002). Overall, social disorganization theory has been successfullyapplied to many different aspects of behavior from individual to societal witha large amount of empirical support for uncovering neighborhood effects. A

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


criticism of this theory is that it fails to address the mechanisms that shapethe structures and processes that constitute the formation of community life(see Table 1).

Functionalist

Compared to the theories reviewed thus far, social workers may find it moreuseful to know how community life can be reshaped if it is not fitting theneeds of those who reside within them. Functionalist theories assert thatthere are rewards that neighborhood systems bestow upon their residentsbased on adherence to the rules of that system (Merton & Nisbet, 1961).In essence, neighborhood can shape the behaviors of individuals throughregulating their outcomes. A behavior in one neighborhood may bring areward while the same behavior in another neighborhood, where it is nottolerated by the system, would bring a negative consequence. A criticalunderstanding of this process appears to be insufficient in addressing twoquestions. First, functionalist theory fails to explain what characteristics shapethe willingness of some neighborhoods to be more or less accepting ofparticular behaviors than others; for example, it is unclear what processescontribute to this outcome. Second, it does not seek to answer who is servedby these differences in that it is unclear as to what function this plays inthe lives of the individuals who reap positive or negative consequences.Again, social workers may find it beneficial to understand how acceptanceof particular behaviors is formed. Once that is established, strategies forreform or change can be implemented (see Table 1).

Classical Theories

Classical theories as applied to neighborhood study come from a wide rangeof disciplines as compared to the others reviewed. These theories also havethe greatest in common with functionalist theories (Jenks, 1992; Murray, 1984;Wilson, 1983) in that individuals participate in particular behaviors and theneither reap benefits or negative consequences for these activities that thenact as a behavior regulator. The unifying factor among classical theories isthat they assume that people will avoid negative consequences and seek outrewards. Some theories do a better job than others in explaining how therational can appear irrational based on context, yet this literature does notaddress how seemingly irrational behaviors can be explained. Additionally,this theoretical category within neighborhood research seems to act as acatch-all for theories that do not quite fit into others, those that are antiquatedin their application and not frequently applied in contemporary studies.Additionally, social workers may find it more beneficial to explore howsystems of consequences are formed and managed (see Table 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


Conflict

Conflict theory as applied to neighborhood research stresses the divisionof society into groups with conflicting interests. Here, focus is on howneighborhoods are created and sustained, which then impacts the behaviorsand attitudes of the individuals who reside within them. Thus, to understandhow a neighborhood’s characteristics influence an area, one must look tohow neighborhoods are formed from both a social and economic perspectivebefore making assumptions about behavioral or attitudinal outcomes. Tothis effect, conflict theory’s focus on competition for resources and accessto resources has a good fit with the social justice aspect of the social workprofession. Perhaps the best example of the usefulness of this approachcan be found in the sentiments expressed in Marx’s Eleventh Thesis onFeuerbach, which succinctly states, ‘‘The philosophers have only interpreted

the world; the point, however, is to change it’’ (Marx & Engels, 1969, p. 13).Conflict theory affords a focus on the inequality and injustice of particulargroups in society that stem from working-class status. Through this lens,individual relationships and behaviors are seen as products of social andeconomic relationships in our society whereas the other theories presenteddo not encompass such interactions. Specific to the purpose of social work,this theory finds importance in understanding why neighborhoods are un-equal where other neighborhood theories do not share the same ideals.For example, conflict theory seeks to level inequality and injustice throughsocial action, a major tenet of social work. Other theories seem to adequatelydescribe and, to a certain extent, find associations among neighborhoodeffects and outcomes for the individuals and groups. However, few includesocial action or any other method to address this problem. This omissiondoes not appear to be merely differences between fields as cross-disciplinaryliterature supporting this analysis and the academic backgrounds of theauthors cited within are an indication of this diversity. A criticism of conflicttheory as applied to neighborhood research is that it tends to be relativistic.This subjectivity is dependent on individual and group values and differencesin perception that does not adequately account for deviance and stigmaassociated with particular neighborhoods or those who comprise them. Fur-ther, conflict theory does not explain struggles that do not arise out of classinterest. To this end, social workers could explore the dynamics surroundinghow neighborhood consensus is formed and how it represents class interest(see Table 1).

CONCLUSION

Although neighborhood theory development and application remain lessexplored in social work literature than theories addressing interventions of a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


clinical nature, the use of the ecological perspective is successful in providingan overarching framework to better understand this topic. It clearly illustratesthe importance of the environment, focusing on the concept of person-in-environment. What seems less developed are the environmental influenceson the person. The other theories appear to fill in the various gaps.

From this review and analysis social comparison, we see that culture ofpoverty, social disorganization, functionalist, classical, and conflict theoriesall have something to offer neighborhood research. However, when seekingto identify a neighborhood theory that is of most use to social work, conflicttheory is most closely aligned with the purpose and subsequent interventionsof this discipline. In this regard, conflict theory has many advantages and isa useful model for neighborhood research in social work. Conflict theory’sfocus on how neighborhoods are formed and sustained is of interest to socialwork. It is not unusual to work with populations financially, psychologically,and physically trapped in poor, dilapidated neighborhoods with little or nohope for a brighter future. The strength of conflict theory’s utility in under-standing neighborhood context is its ability to prescribe a comprehensivemethod to facilitate change. Conflict theory would not simply target change atthe individual level. It views political action as the catalyst for the resolutionof problems such as inequality and injustice. For example, delinquencywould not be seen as an individual malady in the youths committing thecrimes but one that lies within the neighborhood brought on by scarceresources, whether that is lack of parenting or lack of things for that matter.Viewing social issues through this lens assigns responsibility and requireschange on multiple levels. Therefore, the application of conflict theory toneighborhood research highlights the importance of social work engagementin advocacy and political action in order to initiate and sustain changes atmultiple levels including the neighborhood. This is not to imply that thistheory is without limitations; however, through the preceding review andanalysis of other neighborhood theories, it appears that conflict theory hasmuch to offer with regard to the values and purpose of social work. Forexample, this approach to neighborhood study calls for a recursive relation-ship between theory and practice. This praxis allows for the implementationof theory in practice and to find reflection of practice in theory in order tofind meaning in actions.

Overall, conflict theory comprehensively addresses the aspects of neigh-borhood research in terms of the problem of inequality while staying trueto the purpose of social work by viewing the social worker as an agentof social change. In addition, the application of conflict theory has theability to aid both researchers and practitioners in assessing contributorsand characteristics that perpetuate neighborhood pathology, the mechanismsthat shape structures and processes of community life, and the formation andreformation of behavioral norms and consequences. Perhaps most reflectiveof social work’s values and ethics within neighborhood research is found in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


conflict theory’s capacity to consistently ask, ‘‘Whom does it serve?’’ It is thisquestion that is at the very core of the profession’s role in seeking to levelinequality and injustice.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional predictions of behavior inpersonality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,27(1), 41–57.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors ofspecific behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 20, 1–63.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the

inner city. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building pre-

vention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family

Relations, 45(2), 127–138.Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber J. L. (Eds.). (1997). Neighborhood poverty

(vols. I & II). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory

of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 128–147.Bursik, R. J. (1986). Ecological stability and the dynamics of delinquency. Crime and

Justice, 8, 35–66.Freedberg, S. (1984, January 1). Bertha Capen Reynolds—a woman struggling in

her times. New York, NY: Columbia University.Freedberg, S. (1986). Religion, profession, and politics: Bertha Capen Reynolds’

challenge to social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 56(2), 95–110.Goode, J., & Eames, E. (1996). An anthropological critique of the culture of poverty.

In G. Gmelch and W. Zenner (Eds.), Urban life. Long Grove, IL: WavelandPress.

Greve, H. R. (2002). An ecological theory of spatial evolution: Local density depen-dence in Tokyo banking, 1894–1936. Social Forces, 80(3), 847–879.

Hartman, A. (1986). The life and work of Bertha Reynolds: Implications for educationand practice today. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 56(2), 79–94.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Jencks, C. (1992). Rethinking social policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor

neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn, Jr. & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty

in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. (1991). Beyond youths: Problem behavior and

young adult development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Joseph, B. (1986). Taking organizing back to the people. Smith College Studies in

Social Work, 56(2), 122–131.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


Kasarda, J. (1972). The theory of ecological expansion: An empirical test. Social

Forces, 51(2), 165–175.Korbin, J. E., & Coulton, C. (1997). Understanding the neighborhood context for chil-

dren and families: Combining epidemiological and ethnographic approaches.In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty (vol.II, pp. 65–79). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Korbin, J. E., Coulton, C. J., Chard, S., Platt-Houston, C., & Su, M. (1998). Impover-ishment and child maltreatment in African American and European Americanneighborhoods. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 215–233.

Lee, J. (1996). The empowerment approach to social work practice. In Social work

treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (4th ed., pp. 218–249). NewYork, NY: Free Press.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers, D.Cartwright (Ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 215(4), 19–25.Marx, C., & Engels, F. (1969). Marx/Engels selected works (vol. 1). Moscow, USSR:

Progress Publishers.Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3,

672–682.Merton, R. K., & Nisbet, R. A. (Eds.). (1961). Contemporary social problems: An

introduction to the sociology of deviant behavior and social disorganization.New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Murray, C. A. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980. New York,NY: Basic Books.

Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). An introduction to sociology. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Reynolds, B. (1951). Social work and social living; Explorations in philosophy and

practice. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.Sampson, R. J. (1993). Linking time and place: Dynamic contextualism and the future

of criminological theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4),426–444.

Sampson, R. J. (1997). Collective regulation of youth misbehavior: Validation resultsfrom eighty Chicago neighborhoods. Journal of Youth Research, 12(2), 227–244.

Sampson, R. J., & Bartuch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) toleranceof deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society

Review, 32(4), 777–804.Sampson, R. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (1997). Ecological perspective on the neighborhood

context of urban poverty. In J. B. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber(Eds.), Neighborhood poverty (vol. I, pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Russell SageFoundation.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing ‘‘neighbor-hood effects’’: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review

Sociology, 28, 443–478.Seidman, E., Yoshikawa, H., Roberts, A., Chesir-Teran, D., Allen, L., Friedman,

J. L., & Aber, J. L. (1998). Structural and experiential neighborhood contexts,developmental stage and antisocial behavior among urban youths in poverty.Development and Psychopathology, 10, 259–281.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012


Shaw, C. R. (1929). Delinquency areas: A study of the geographic distribution of

school truants, juvenile delinquents, and adult offenders in Chicago. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (1981). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law.St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Sly, D. F., & Tayman, J. (1980). Metropolitan and population mobility: The theoryof ecological expansion reexamined. The American Journal of Sociology, 86(1),119–138.

Ungar, M. (2002, September). A deeper, more social ecological social work practice.Social Service Review, 76(3), 480–497.

Wellman, B. (2000). Changing connectivity: A future history of Y2.03K’. Sociolog-

ical Research Online, 4. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/4/wellman.html

Wilson, J. Q. (1983). Thinking about crime (2nd rev. ed.). New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and

public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology.

New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chr

istin

e R

ine]

at 0

5:51

26

Janu

ary

2012

Thermal performance of screen mesh wick heat pipes with nanofluids

Documents