Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice · Theories in the Field of Community Psychology...

Theories in the Field of Community Psychology

Leonard A. Jason

Ed Stevens

Daphna Ram

Steven A. Miller

Christopher R. Beasley

Kristen Gleason

DePaul University Rosalind Franklin

University of Medicine and Science

Washington College

University of Hawai`i at Manoa

Keywords: Theory, Science, Community Psychology, Framework

Author Biographies:

Leonard Jason is a professor of Clinical and Community Psychology at DePaul University. He been working on a NICHD grant with Dr. Robinson for the past few years on violence prevention with urban 9th grade youth.

Ed Stevens is a graduate of the Community Psychology doctoral program at DePaul University, and previously received his MBA from the University of Chicago. He is currently a Project Director/Research Associate at the Center for Community Research, overseeing a NIH funded study of social networks in recovery homes. His interests include methods, measures, and understanding personal change.

Daphna Ram received her PhD in Developmental Psychology from Cornell University in 2011. She worked as a Project Director at the Center for Community Research with Dr. Leonard Jason and is currently the Social Development Director at Long Beach Job Corps Center.

Steven A. Miller is an assistant professor in the psychology department at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science. He holds a Ph.D. in social psychology, masters’ degrees in clinical psychology and statistics, and bachelors’ degrees in philosophy and psychology. Steve is interested in the relationship between stable individual difference characteristics and emotional experiences, the application of quantitative and novel research methodologies to psychological problems, and the history and philosophy of science in general. Most recently, he has been involved in making taxometric methods more accessible to psychologists. For over five years, he has also been involved in collaborative research with individuals in community psychology where he has ensured methodological rigor and contributed to conceptual

Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 2 February 2016

Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/

formulation of research problems. Steve is also interested in helping the field of psychology to embrace methodology which promotes findings that are more likely to replicate.

Christopher R. Beasley is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Washington College and Principle Investigator for the Community Engagement Research Team. He has a M.A in Clinical psychology as well as Ph.D. in Community Psychology. Dr. Beasley's research primarily investigates people's psychological and behavioral engagement in their communities. He has examined processes related to satisfaction, commitment, citizenship behavior, involvement, and tenure in mutual-help addiction recovery homes. Dr. Beasley also assists mutual-help organizations pursue their research objectives, forming a national community advisory board of Oxford House addiction recovery home residents and alumni to guide research projects and fundraising for such inquiry. Lastly, Dr. Beasley has written and presented on theoretical concepts such as person-environment fit and 3rd order change.

Kristen D. Gleason recently graduated from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa with a Doctorate in Community and Cultural Psychology. She is currently a project director at DePaul University’s Center for Community Research in Chicago, Illinois. Her research interests include homelessness, human trafficking, and examining social issues in relation to the structural and systemic factors that sustain them.

Authors’ Notes: Our thanks to John Light, David Glenwick, Richard Boyd, Diana Ohanian for their helpful comments and suggestions. We appreciate support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Grant R01AA022763), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant R01HD072208), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Grant R01A1105781).

Recommended Citation: Jason, L.A., Stevens, E., Ram, D. Miller, S.A., Beasley, C.R., Gleason, K., (2016). Theories in the field of community psychology. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(2), pages 1-27. Retrieved Day/Month/Year, from (http://www.gjcpp.org/).

Correspondence should be addressed to Leonard A. Jason, DePaul University, Center for Community Research, 990 W. Fullerton Ave., Suite 3100, Chicago, Il. 60614



TheoriesintheFieldofCommunityPsychologyAbstract

Inthisarticle,wereviewsomeofthekeyattributesofusefultheoriesandassesswhethertheseattributesarepresentinseveralprominentCommunityPsychologytheories.ThefieldofCommunityPsychologyoftendealswithcomplexsystemsandattemptstocreatechangethroughtheuseofmultiplemechanisms.Ithasprovidedresearchersnewwaysof thinking about contextual factors and howparticipants could bemore involved inresearchefforts. However, this fieldhasencounteredsignificantchallenges in testingandevaluatingtheoriesthatinvolvesystem-levelenvironmentalchange.Ithasstruggledtoestablishconsensuswhenoperationallydefiningcriteriaandwhencreatingreliableinstruments for measuring theoretical constructs. We conclude that CommunityPsychologytheorieshavetendedtofunctionasframeworks,whichindicateimportantelementstoexamine,butdonotspecifyrelationshipsthatcanbeusedforexplanationandare,therefore,toobroadtomakethetypesofpredictionscharacteristicofscience.Because Community Psychology theories have often served as orienting frameworks,there needs to be more discussion about their usefulness, and whether communitypsychologistscandevelopmorerigorousandspecifictheories.Thishasimplicationsforformulatingvariouspracticesandfordiscussionsabouthowfutureresearchcanbetterinformtheory.

Theoreticalissuesaboundinmanyareasofpsychology.Meehl(1978,pp.806),oneofthemorevocaladvocatesoftheimportanceoftheory,hasstated:“mostsocalledtheoriesinthesoftareasofpsychology(clinical,counseling,social,personality,community,andschoolpsychology)arescientificallyunimpressiveandtechnologicallyworthless.”Whilethisstancereflectsapositivisticapproachtopsychologythatisnotnecessarilyembracedbyallcommunitypsychologists,thechargeisworthconsiderationnonetheless(Kloos,Hill,Thomas,Wandersman,Elias,&Dalton,2012).Itwouldbeusefulforthefieldtohaveaclear,sharedunderstandingaroundtheuseoftheterm“theory”andwhenandhowitappliestotheworkthatwedo.Itisinthisspiritthatweexploresomeofthekey“theories”usedbycommunitypsychologistsinordertoassesswhetherornottheyfitwithintheconceptoftheoryastraditionallydefinedinscientificinquiry.Inordertodothiswemustfirsttracethedefinitionanduseoftheideaof“theory”inthesetermsandthenwemustdeterminewhichofthemwithinthefieldofcommunity

psychologymightbefruitfullyanalyzedusingthisrubric.

DefiningandUsingTheoryinScientificInquiry

AccordingtoKerlinger(1986),“Atheoryisasetofinterrelatedconstructs(concepts),definitions,andpropositionsthatpresentasystematicviewofphenomenabyspecifyingrelationsamongvariables,withthepurposeofexplainingandpredictingphenomena”(p.11).Ahallmarkofthescientificprocessisthedevelopmentandtestingoftheories,and,consequently,thosedisciplineswithoutgoodtheoreticalfoundationsareoftenseenaslessrigorousorlessvaluabletothelargerscientificcommunity.Theoriesallowdatatobeorganized,systematized,andinterpreted.Somewouldarguethatwithouttheoriesitishardertoachieveprogresstowardsusefulaccumulatedknowledge.McAdamsandPals(2007)statethat:"Theoryisattheheartofscience”(p3),andFeynman(1997)believesthatifacademicsarenotengagingintheoreticalwork,theircontributionsarebest



categorizedasanengineeringendeavorratherthantruescience.

Ofcourse,otherswoulddisagreewithFeynman’s(1997)assessment.Inthefieldofmedicine,forexample,muchoccursthatispracticalandcontributestothelargermissionofbothpatientcareandthedevelopmentofnewtherapeuticmethods.Infact,manymedicaldiscoveriessuchasthediscoveryofpenicillin,whichbeganthemoderneraofantibioticdevelopment(Colebrook,1956),aretheresultofserendipityratherthanprogrammatictheory-testedexperiments.However,evenwithinthemoreapplieddisciplinessuchasmedicine,thereareimplicittheoreticalmodels.Forexample,theoreticalmodelsregardingcellfunction,cellgrowth,andbiochemicalchangehaveallowedscientiststodevelopinterventionsforanumberofneurodegenerativediseases(Sheikh,Safia,Haque,&Mir,2013).Thoughtherearedistinctionsbetweenthosewhopracticemedicineandthosewhoseresearchexplicitlywieldstheory,manybelievetheoriesapplytobothtypesofactivitiesand,moreimportantly,arethedrivingforceforinnovations.Itisevenpossibletoarguethatinanyresearchorclinicalpractice,thereisalwaysatheoreticalmodelinoperation.

CriteriaforEvaluatingTheories

Theoriesservethreepurposes—describing,explaining,andpredictingphenomena(Jiang,1998).First,theoriesareusedtodescribeaphenomenon.Thesedescriptiveprocessesarethenusedtoexplainwhythephenomenonoccurs,andthisexplanatoryframeworkisthenusedinmakinginferentialpredictions.Awell-formulatedtheoryshouldalsobeabletoexplainthephenomenaofinterestandpositunderwhichcircumstancesandconditions(people,settings,andtimes)agivensetofpropositionsshouldapply.Thisprovidesabetterunderstandingofthephenomenonofinterestandallowsforamorecriticalanalysis.Forexample,AffectiveEventsTheory(AET;Weiss&Cropanzano,

1996)positsthataffectivebehaviors(e.g.,citizenshipbehaviorssuchascourtesy,conscientiousness,andsportsmanship)aredirectlyrelatedtoaffectiveexperiences,whilejudgment-drivenbehaviors(e.g.,leavingasetting)areindirectlyrelatedtoaffectthroughtheattitudes(e.g.satisfactionandcommitment)formedbysuchexperiences.Thisdistinctionisacriticalpartofunderstandingtherelationshipbetweenaffectiveeventsandbehavior,andthistheoryhasbeenfruitfullyappliedtocommunitysettings(Beasley&Jason,2015).

AccordingtoReichenbach(1938),thereisadistinctionbetweenthecontextofdiscoveryandthecontextofjustification.Inthecontextofdiscovery,peopledescribewhattheyhavestumbledupon;whereasinthecontextofjustification,theymakepredictionsandthentesttheseideasinordertoproveordisprovethem.Indeed,theprevalentpracticeofgeneratinghypothesesandtheoriesafterthedatahavebeenanalyzed(knownasHARKing;HypothesizingAftertheResultsareKnown;Kerr,1998)hasreceivedquiteabitofcriticalattention.Inthesecircumstancesitispossiblethatoneisonlyexplainingphenomenathroughthelensofwhatisalreadyknown.Feynman(1997)hasdescribedgoodscienceasaprocessof“bendingoverbackwardtoshowoneselfwrong.”WithHARKedtheoreticalexplanation,thereisanabsenceofsuch“bendingoverbackwards.”Asanapproachtoinquiry,itleanstowardsaffirmation,riskingaresultthatsimplyconfirmswhataresearcheralreadybelievestobetrue.ThisisreminiscentofMeehl’s(1967)argumentthatpsychologists’relianceonpost-hocexplanationofwhyphenomenadidordidnotoccurobscuresthefield’sabilitytoassesswhypeoplefunctionastheydo.TocounteractthebiasofHARK,someresearcherssuggestthattheoriesneedtobe:1)articulated(andperhapshypothesesevenregisteredbeforeresearchisconducted)-thisisakintoNozekandBar-Anan’s(2012)conceptofOpenScienceand2)testedapriori



sothatonecanseewhetherornotanygiventheoryactsasavalid“inferenceticket”forhumanphenomena.

Itshouldbenotedthatsomehaveraisedimportantconcernsregardingtheclassiccontextofdiscovery/contextofjustificationdistinction(e.g.,Hoyningien-Huene,2006),butevenwhilequestioningthemeritofsuchanunambiguousbinarydivide,mostwouldstillrecognizetheneedfor“adistinctnormativeperspectivethataimsattheevaluationofscientificclaims”Hoyningien-Huene,2006,p.130).Amajoraimofthisarticleistoattempttoapplysome“normativeperspective”regardingtheuseoftheorytoworkinthefieldofCommunityPsychologyandtogeneratewhatwehopewillbeaproductiveconversationaroundsuchaims.

Onesuchnormativecriteriaoftenusedinscienceisthatgoodtheoriesneedtoofferclearpredictionsregardingwhatshouldhappenwithnewdata,andthesepredictionsshouldbecapableofbeingrigorouslytestedandfalsified(Popper,1968).AccordingtoBorsboom(2013),“Agoodscientifictheoryallowsyoutoinferwhatwouldhappentothingsincertainsituationswithoutcreatingthesituations…Theoriesshouldbeinterpretedasinferencetickets.”Otherwise,atheoryistoobroadtomakethetypesofpredictionscharacteristicofscience.Inmakingpredictionsaboutnewdata,theoriesprovideinsightintohowhumanbehaviorworksinsystematicways.Ultimately,theoriesarepartoftheprocesswhereobservationsbecomeevidenceforgeneralizableknowledge,whichcanhaveusefulapplicability.Theoriesalsodealwithfalsifiabilityandutility(Bacharach,1989;Huber,2008;VandeVen,1989).

Finally,whenusingtheoriesinresearch,investigatorsneedtoassesstheapplicabilityofatheorywithinavarietyofcontextsinordertodescribetheboundaryconditionsinwhichthetheorypredictionsholdordonothold.Forexample,underclassicalconditions,thetheoryofgravitationiscorrect.But,

gravitationaltheorydoesnotapplyatquantumdistancesorextremelyhighenergies—thatis,thereisnotheoryofquantumgravity.Gravityappliesverynicelywhenpredictingmotionofobjects,butnotunderallconditions(i.e.,airresistanceofadroppedobjectmustbeconsidered).Whiletheboundariesofthetheoryofgravitationseemquiteobviousinthisexample,analogousboundariesarenotalwaysasclearinthetheoriesoftenusedinthefieldofCommunityPsychology.Considerlearningtheory.Skinner(1971)assertedthatreinforcementisakeycomponentoflearninginbothhumansandpigeons.However,whenattentionalcapacityislimited(e.g.,byseriousheadinjury,overwhelmingenvironmentalstimuli,intenseemotionalstates),learningmaynotoccurinthesamemanner.Itisdifficulttotrainpigeonstofightadversaries,astheymaybeevolutionarilyhardwiredforflightratherthanfight.

Boundaryconditionsareoneofthewaystheoriescanbeabasisforprogress,andpartofsuchadvancementinvolvesdevelopingbetterunderstandingsofwhenandhowatheorydoesanddoesnotapplytoparticularsettingsandcircumstances.IfBowlby(1969;1980)hadnotproposedacleartheorythatallowedforpredictionsandexperimentation,Ainsworthwouldnothavemadeherdiscoveryaboutboundaryconditions.Bowlby’s(1969;1980)influentialAttachmentTheorywithindevelopmentalpsychologypostulatedthatarelationshipwithastableconsistentcaregiverisimportantforemotionaldevelopment.AinsworthandBell(1970)testedthistheorybyobservingparent-childinteractions,andnoticedthatnotallchildrenreactedtoseparationfromandreunionwiththeirparentsinthesamemanner.Therelationshipbetweenchildrenandtheirparentsplaysasignificantroleinchildren’sfeelingsofsecurity.Inotherwords,thetheorydidnotapplyuniversallyandboundaryconditionsrelatedtoindividualdifferencesexisted.Althoughtheprimarypurposeoftheoryistoexplaincurrent



phenomenaandpredicthowthingsmaybehaveinthefuture,somehaveusedtheorytoexplainandunderstandpastevents.Thereareothersetsofcriteriafortheoryassessment,thatarebeyondthescopeofthispapersuchasimportance,precisionandclarity,parsimonyandsimplicity,comprehensiveness,operationality,empiricalvalidationorverification,fruitfulness,andpracticality(Patterson,1986).

Clearlydefiningtheoryinthismannerisimportantbecauseoften“theory,”“model”and“framework”areusedinterchangeably;however,thereareimportantdifferencesintheseconcepts(SeeFigure1).Aframeworkinformsresearchersofthetypesofelementsthatareconsideredimportantavenuesofinvestigation.Itlargelyperformsthedescriptivefunctionofatheorywithlimitedexplanatoryand/orpredictivequalities.Awell-knownexampleisBronfennbrenner’s(1979)framework,whichismadeupofmacrosystem,mesosystemandmicrosystemelements.However,becausethetermsmacrosystem,mesosystem,andmicrosystemarenotspecific,theframeworkdoesnot

makepredictions.Inotherwords,withoutfurtherrefinement,thisframeworkdoesnotspecifyrelationshipsthatcanbeusedforexplanationandprediction.Therefore,aframeworkcouldbedescribedasasetoforientingprincipleswhich,however,requiremorespecificdefinition,operationalization,andsoon,inordertobeappliedinanygivenresearchorothercircumstance.Forexample,Bronfenbrenner’s(1979)frameworkcanbeusedtospecifyandoperationalizethepropositionthatproximalsystemsarelikelytohavegreaterimpactonindividualsthandistalsystemsandinvestigationstargetingthesedifferentlevelsofimpactcouldbeusedtoevaluatethisverypoint.However,asitstandstheframeworkitselfsimplypointstomultiplelevelsofinfluence.Ifresearcherslookbackwards,Bronfenbrenner’secologicalsystemsframeworkdoesseemtodescribehowsomesocialsystemswork,butitisnotspecificenoughtobetestableinarigoroussense.Withinoneframework,oftenmultipletheoriescanbederived,andofteneachtheorymighthaveseveraldifferentmodelsandaccompanyinghypotheses(SeeFigure1).

Figure1.Relationshipamongoneframework,whichmighthaveseveraltheoriesandmodelsNOTE:Theremaybeoneormorehypothesiswithineachmodel.Inthisfigureforthesakeofsimplicityweonlylisttwohypothesespermodel.

IntheinterestsofclarityandconsensusabouttheuseofthesetermswithinthefieldofCommunityPsychology,weintendtoexplore

someoftheclassic“theories”whichhavebeenmuchbelovedinthefield.Weconsiderthequestionofwhetherthesetheoriesmight



bemoreproductivelyclassifiedandusedasframeworksbecausetheylacktheabilitytoaidwiththeoperationalizationandpredictioninherenttoadefinitionoftheoryasclassicallyusedinscientificinquiry.Frameworksarecertainlyimportantanduseful,butthinkingthroughhowweasafieldcanmoreexplicitlyfleshouttheseframeworksintosetsoftestabletheorieswouldgoalongwaytowardmakingsignificantprogressinunderstandingcomplexsystemsandthecontextsinwhichpeoplelivetheirlives.

CommunityPsychology

Beforeapplyingthisrubrictothemajortheoriesputforthinthefield,itisimportanttosituatethephilosophyofscienceoutlinedabove(anditscoredefinitionoftheory)withinthecontextofCommunityPsychologyandpractice.CommunityPsychologyemergedabout50yearsago.Asthefieldevolved,certainrecurringthemesalsoemerged:emphasizingpreventionovertreatment,highlightingcompetenciesoverweaknesses,collaboratingacrossdisciplines,exploringecologicalunderstandingsofpeoplewithintheirenvironment,promotingdiversity,andfocusingoncommunitybuildingasamodeofintervention(Moritsugu,Vera,Wong,&Duffy,2013).Theseconceptsfocusedonnewwaysofthinkingaboutcontextualfactorsandhowparticipantscouldbemoreinvolvedinresearchefforts.Theseconceptsalsoconcentratedmoreonpublichealthsystemsandpreventiveapproaches(Kloos,et.al.,2012).Ataninfluentialcommunitymethodsconference,Tolan,Keys,Chertok,andJason(1990)respondedtoamultitudeofissuesfacingthefieldofCommunityPsychology,andintroducedadialogueregardingcriterianecessarytodefineresearchofmeritaswellasmethodologicalconsiderationsinimplementingecologically-drivenresearch.Participantsatthisconferenceappealedforthecarefulconstructionandtestingoftheoryincommunityresearch(p.226).AlaterCommunityPsychologymethodsconference

exploredthegapinthescientificknowledgeandpracticeofcommunitybasedresearchmethodologiesemphasizingparticipatoryresearch(Jasonetal.,2004).Theoriesofcontextandactionforsocialchange(Lewin,1946;Vygotsky,1981)havebeenpartoftheCommunityPsychologyfieldfromitsinceptionandcontinuetobeutilized[e.g.,Seidman’s(1988)theoryofsocialregularitiesinsocialsettings].

CommunityPsychologywasfoundedasadisciplinethatisintendedtocombineascientificorientationwithcollaborativesocialactioninordertoempowermembersofsomecommunityofinterestandtohelpthemimprovetheirlives.Thisorientationresultsinsomeimportantdifferencesbetweenthe“hard”sciencesandCommunityPsychology,inthatittakesaccountofthefactthathumansarecognitive,agenticunits,andcannotbeacteduponasthoughtheywereinertobjects.Thisimpliesthatsomelevelofcollaborationwillalwaysberequiredtoinstitutesocialchange.Additionally,thisorientationhasalsosensitizedthefieldtoaneedtolistentosocialactors,ratherthantoprescribetothem,whichinturnhasledtomanyinsightsregardingwhatlifeislikefromthepointofviewofcommunitymembers.However,thesegoalsmightruntheriskofsubordinatingsomepotentiallyveryimportantaspectsofscientificdevelopment,includingthedevelopmentoftheoriescapableofeffectivelydescribing,predicting,andexplainingimportantphenomena.

Itispossibletothinkaboutdifferentfieldsofpsychologyashavingdifferentgoals.Forexample,developmentalpsychologyaimstodocumentandunderstandthechangesinhumansacrossthelifespan.ThegoalofCommunityPsychologyhasbeenexpressedasanattempttounderstandthewaysthatalteringspecifichumancontexts(andperhapstherelationshipbetweenpeopleandtheircontexts)alleviateshumansuffering.Althoughmuchoftheexplanationofindividualdifference“todate”hasfocusedongenetics/natureandaccumulated



experience/nurture,theremayalsobeasignificantamountofvariancethatcanbeaccountedforbyourinteractionswithourcurrentenvironment.CommunityPsychologyhasmuchtocontributetothisarea,bothintermsoftheoriestodescribetheimpactsofcontextandenvironment,aswellasreliableandvalidmeasurestocapturethesecomplexphenomena.

Perspectivism

ThedefinitionoftheorydescribedabovespringslargelyoutofatraditionalWesternphilosophyofscience.Notallcommunitypsychologistssubscribetothiskindoflogicalempiricismastheirguidingphilosophyofscience.Infact,manycommunitypsychologistsfocusontheideathatweneedtoidentifyandunderstandmultipleperspectivesonreality.Thisinvolvesunderstandingtheimportanceofmultiplecontextsincludinggender,race,age,sexualorientation,religion,anddisabilitystatus.However,iftakentotheextremeofconsideringeachecologicalsettingtobeuniquewithitsownhistoryandvaryinginfluences(ascanhappenwithpureconstructivism),theremaybenogeneralizableprinciplesthatcanbeextendedacrosssettings(Trickett,Watts,&Birman,1994).Anassumptionofscienceisthattherearesomeregularitiesintheworld,andtheyareoftenstationaryenoughtohavegeneralizedmeaning.Iftherandomnessofdiversitydominateshumanandcommunitybehavior,thentheorieshavelowvalue.However,asTebes(2005)pointsout,understandinghowandwhypeople’sperspectivesdifferandthesituationsinwhichperspectivesariseallowsaplaceforscienceandforconceptualizingtheoreticallyinconductingscientificresearch.

Ourdefinitionoftheoryislargelycouchedinlanguageofempiricism,butthereareimportantreasonstoconsiderotherscientificperspectives,especiallygivenCommunityPsychology’sgoalofexaminingcontext.ForTebes(2012),perspectivismsuggeststhatall

knowledgeisdependentontheobserver’spointofview,isimperfectandincomplete,andissubjecttosocialandculturalinfluences.Accordingtoperspectivism,ourknowledgeemergesoutofactiveengagementwiththeworld.Therefore,iftherearemultipleperspectiveson“reality”,itmaybebesttosimultaneouslyexaminemultipletheories.Someethnomethodologistsandphenomenologistsinthefieldofsociologywouldevengoasfarastosuggestthereisno“scienceofhumanbehavior”(Ashley&Orenstein,2005).Indeed,asociologicalapproachtocritiquingknowledgecanhelpusunderstandpower,oppression,andaction(Berger,1977;Merton,1968;Strauss,1997),recognizingthatknowledgeisbothincompleteanddependentoncultureandcontext.Consequently,thisraisestheconsiderationthateveryculture,whichlogicallyimplieseverysocialsystem(evendyadsorindividualsastheirconstituentparts),isunique.

Perspectivismleadstonotonlymeta-theoreticalconsiderationsofpower,knowledge,anddiversityofperspective,butalsomethodologicalones1.Forexample,neighborhoodsarenotstaticanddochangeovertime.Heller(2014)hasindicatedthatthevariousimpedimentsthatcommunitiesconfront,suchasinadequateresourcesorinsufficienttechnicalknowledge,mayrequiredifferentstrategies.Tebes(2012)hasarguedforapragmaticpointofview:thatevidencefor“trueness”maybebestobtainedfromadiversesetofmixedmethods,onethatincludesthevoicesofmultipleperspectivesandformsofdata.Thechallengeforthisresearchistoconsolidate,aggregate,andmakesenseofthemultiplestrandsofevidenceordata,anditmaybestbeachievedatsomemeta-levelofanalysis.Inasense,wemaybeabletorecognizedifferentperspectiveson“reality”,andyetstilldistillcommonelements,orpredictablerelationshipsamongseeminglydisparateelements.Whilethisviewacknowledgesthatoftenmultipleandcompetingdefinitionsof



humanphenomena(alongwithinherentissuesofpowerandprivilege)areatplay,italsoproposesthatattimesitispossibletodescribecommonelementsthatholdtrueacrossdiversecontexts.ItiswiththeintentionofinstigatingacohesivedistillationofthesecommonelementswithinthefieldofCommunityPsychologythatweofferthefollowingdiscussionrelatedtothemajortheoriesinthefield.

CentralTheories

ThequestionofwhichtheoriesarecentraltothefieldofCommunityPsychologycontinuestobeasubjectofdebate.TheauthorsofthisarticlerecentlypostedthefollowingnoticeontheSocietyforCommunityResearchandAction’slistserv:“AgroupofusatDePaulUniversityarethinkingaboutwhichtheoriesarecentraltothefieldofCommunityPsychology.Wewouldbeinterestedinlearningwhetheryouusetheoriesexplicitly,andifyoudousetheoriesexplicitly,whattheoriesyouuse,anddoyouborrowthemfromotherdisciplinesoraretheyfromthefieldofCommunityPsychology.”Thefollowing32theorieswerementioned:

1. Kelly’s(2006)EcologicalTheory;2. Rappaport’s(1981)EmpowermentTheory;3. Sarason’s(1974)PsychologicalSenseofCommunityTheory;4. Bronfennbrenner’s(1979)EcologicalSystemsTheory;5. HawkinsandCatalano’s(1992)SocialDevelopmentmodel;6. DohrenwendandDohrenwend’s(1981)Stress&Copingmodel;7. Ryan’s(1976)BlamingtheVictim;8. Martin-Baro’s(1994)LiberationPsychologyTheory;9. Rogers’s(1959)HelpingRelationships(empathy,acceptance/warmth,andgenuineness);10. IrvingYalom’s(2005)ConceptionofTherapeuticFactorsinGroupTherapy(instillationofhope,universality,etc.);

11. Habermas’s(1984,1987)TheoryofCommunicativeAction;12. Marcuse’s(1969)CriticalSocialTheory;13. O’Donnell,Tharp,&Wilson’s(1993)ActivityTheory;14. FlayandSchure’s(2012)IntegrativeTheory;15. Rawls’s(1971)SocialJusticeTheory;16. Sen's(2009)SocialJusticeTheory;17. Foucault's(1991)ConceptionofPower;18. Bordieus's(1986)TheoryofFormsofCapital;19. Foster-Fishman,Nowell,andWang’s(2007)System-TheoreticalWork;20. FishbeinandAjzen’s(1975)TheoryofReasonedAction;21. Ajzen’s(1991)TheoryofPlannedBehavior;22. Rutter’s(1985)ResilienceTheory;23. WeissandCropanzano’s(1996)AffectiveEventsTheory;24. Barker’s(1968)BehaviorSettingTheory;25. French,Rogers,andCobb’s(1974)Person-EnvironmentFitTheoryofStress;26. BiglanandSloaneWilson’s(2015)BehavioralSystemsScience;27. NowellandBoyd’s(2010)SenseofCommunityResponsibilityConceptandTheory;28. VonBertallanfy’s(1969)OpenSystemsTheory;29. Moos’s(1986)SocialContextPerspective;30. Argyris's(1993)OrganizationalLearningTheory;31. SrivastvalandCooperrider's(1986)AppreciativeInquiryTheory;32. Spreitzeretal.’s(2005)SociallyEmbeddedModelofThriving.

Weweresomewhatsurprisedbyboththevarietyoftheoriesbeingusedaswellasthefacttherewaslittleagreementforleadingorcentraltheories.BecauseCommunityPsychologyisconcernedwithmanypersonalandsocialissues,perhapsthevarietyaboveis



moreofareflectionofthisbreadthofconcernthanasymptomoftheoreticalfragmentationorlackofconsensus.Ifoneweretotracetheoriginsofthesetheories,forexample,itispossiblethatmanyhavesimilarroots,oraddressdifferentlevelsofabstraction(e.g.,individualsvs.socialinstitutions).Inotherwords,itisprobablynotasthoughthisfieldhas32differentexplanationsforessentiallythesamephenomena.Amongtheresponses,afewsuggestedthatthefieldwouldbenefitfrommorerigorouslydefinedtheories,framingrigorintermsofclarityofapplication,clarityofexposition,andlackofambiguityinpredictions.Thisarticleisaresponsetothatchallenge,attemptingtoanalyzehowsuccessfullywehavemetthisstandardofrigor.Wedonothavethespaceinthisarticletorevieweachoftheabovetheories,sowillwewillfocusourevaluationonseveralofthemoreprominenttheoriesinthedevelopmentofthefieldofCommunityPsychology,focusingontheirtestabilityandpredictability.

TheoriesinCommunityPsychology

Inthisarticle,weareattemptingtoassesstheoriesintermsofwhattheycurrentlydoandwhattheyareintendingtodo.Whilewedoacknowledgethattherearemanyinthefieldwhowouldarguethatemployingtheoriesheuristicallyisusefulandthatthe“usefulness”ofatheoryoftendependsonwhatyouareactuallytryingtodowithit,wewillsuggestthatthefollowingtheoriescouldbemoreusefulifprogresswasmadeintheirabilitytopredictanddescribephenomenamoreexplicitly.Therefore,belowwereviewsomeofthekeyattributesofthreeprominentCommunityPsychologytheories,andweexplorewhetherthesetheydescribe,explain,andpredictphenomena.

EcologicalTheory

OverviewofEcologicalTheory

Kelly’s(1968)EcologicalTheoryfocusesonhowpeoplebecomeeffectiveandadaptiveindifferentsocialenvironments.Kellyproposedfourecologicalprinciplesthatserveasatheoryforexaminingsettingsandbehavior:interdependence,cyclingofresources,adaptation,andsuccession.Interdependenceimpliesthatchangeinonecomponentofanecosystemcanchangerelationshipsamongothercomponentsofthesystem.Theprincipleofcyclingofresourcesprovidesaguideforunderstandinghowecosystemscreateandusenewresources.Thisallowsustodeterminehowresourcescanbeusedmoreeffectivelyinasettingandhowadditionalresourcescanbegenerated.Adaptationisdefinedbythewayenvironmentsrestrict,constrain,andshapepeoples’behavior,andhow,inturn,theenvironmentsbegintoalsochangeduetotheindividualswithinthem.Thisconceptimpliesthatbehaviorthatisadaptiveinonesettingmaynotbeadaptiveinothers.Italsopointsustowardtryingtoassesswhoparticipatesindefiningadaptiverolesandingeneratingnormativeacceptanceandsupportforawiderangeofadaptivebehaviors.Finally,theprincipleofsuccessionsuggestscommunitiesareinaconstantprocessofchange,andovertime,thedemandforadaptivecapacitieschanges.

Thistheoryhasbeenusedbycommunitypsychologiststounderstandbehaviorininteractionwithsocialandculturalcontexts.Psychologistsinotherfieldshaveindependentlyexploredanumberofthesedomains.Forexample,socialpsychologicaltheoriesoftenaddressissuesofcontext[e.g.,Latané’s(1981)SocialImpactTheory].However,inLatané’ssocialpsychologicaltheory,thereal-worldinterdependenceordynamicsthatareintegralfeaturesofKelly’stheoryarenotpresent.ForKelly,adaptationandsuccessionarebiological,dynamicprocessesthatcharacterizesocialsettingsandhumaninteractions.

OneexampleofcommunityresearchusingKelly’stheoryistheworkofQuattrochi-Tubin



andJason(1980),evaluatingthesuccessofastimuluscontrolprocedureinincreasinginteractionsamongelderlyparticipantsinaloungeareaofanursinghome.Theinterventioninvolvedprovidingtheresidentscoffeeandcookiestoseewhethertheseresourceswouldchangetheirbehaviors.Severalresidentsmentionedthattheywouldholdahalf-filledcup,eventhoughtheywerenotinterestedindrinkingit,justtobepartofthegroup.Inadditiontoincreasinginteractions,theinterventioneffectivelyeliminatedtelevisionwatching,thusshowingresponsegeneralization.Theinterventionalsodemonstratedinterdependence--changesthatoccurredinoneaspectofthesettinginfluencedotheraspects.Forexample,severalgroupmembersbeganservingcoffeetothosewhowerephysicallyunabletoservethemselves.Onewomanevenapproachedthenursingstationtoinformtheaidesofwhatagoodtimeshewashavingservingthemen.Itappearsthattherefreshmentsrepresentedanenvironmentalsupportfacilitatingsocialactivitiesandaltruisticbehaviors.ForKelly,theecologicalnotionofinterdependencehelpshighlightdynamicprocessesthatoftenoccurinoursocialandcommunityinterventions,asintheexampleofhowsmallchangestothesettingenabledseveralparticipantsinthenursinghometobecomepartofthegroup.

EvaluationofEcologicalTheory

AspectsofKelly’sEcologicalTheoryhavebeenevaluatedusingseveraldiverseapproaches.Kingry-WestergaardandKelly(1990)havesuggestedthatmultipleapproachesareneededtounderstandcomplexqualitiesofrelationshipsandsystems.Onekeymethodforgettingatthesecomplexqualitiesinvolvesthecollaborativerelationshipbetweentheresearcherandtheparticipants.Thismeansthatconceptsandhypothesesaredeveloped,tested,andevaluatedbyboththeresearcherandtheparticipants.Additionally,Wandersman,Chavis,andStuckly(1983)suggestthatthecharacteristicsoftheindividualcitizensthemselves(e.g.,

motivationtoparticipate,availableresources,leveloftraining,andorganizationalcharacteristics)influencethelevelofcitizeninvolvement.Citizenparticipationincommunityinterventionshaspotentialforsensitizing,prioritizing,andsustainingresearchefforts.Iftheresearchlendsitselftocitizeninvolvement,thendeterminingthebestlevelandtypeofinvolvementiscritical.

AccordingtoKelly(2006),peopleinteractwiththeirenvironmentthroughthefourspecificprinciplesdescribedabove.Theseecologicalprinciplesfocusondifferentaspectsofthesocialcontextandbehavior,andtheyalsooverlapandcomplementoneanother.Inaclassicstudyexaminingyouthwhotransitionedintoanewschool,Kelly(1979)foundthatboyswithhighpreferenceforexploratorybehaviorshadmorepositivescoresonadaptationmeasuresinbothoftwoschools,butthatthe“fluid”schoolwheremorestudentsenteredandleftinayear,predictablyfacilitatedmoreexploratorybehavior.ThefindingsofthestudystrengthenedhisviewofEcologicalTheorybyshowingthatperson-environmentinteractionswereimportant,thatadaptionandchangewereeverpresent,andratesvariedbyindividualdifferencesandsetting.

Ontheotherhand,becauseKelly’stheoryprovidesforalargenumberofhypothesesormodels,itissomewhatnon-specific,andthusconsistentwithpotentiallyquiteafewratherdifferentmodels.Parsimonyconsiderationsmightsuggestsimplerandmoredirecttheoriesofperson-settinginteractionsthanthisbroadgeneralizedconstructofsocialecology.Itraisesthefollowingquestion:Ifthistheorycangenerateavarietyofquitedisparatehypotheses,inwhatsensecananyinvestigationinformthevalidityofthetheoryitself?

Forthesereasons,weproposethatKelly’s(1968)EcologicalTheoryismoreusefullyconceptualizedasaframeworkthanasatheory.Though,itisperhapsmorespecificthanBronfennbrenner’s(1979)framework



withrespecttorelationshipsbetweenconstituentelementsanditsabilitytogeneratehypotheses.Forexample,Kelly(2006)hasarguedforthepowerofsocialsupport,statingthat“organizationalresourceswereessentialformywell-being”(p.11).Indeed,theroleofsupportascausalandcriticalforgoodfunctioningisaspecificpredictionmadefromKelly’swork.Frameworksarecertainlyusefultools,especiallyiftheycanbeusedtodevelopseveralinterrelatedmodels.Amodelisasetofhypothesesaboutareal-lifesituation(SeeFigure1);andKelly’s“theory”(orframework)couldbeproductivelydevelopedintooneormoretestablemodels,eachcontainingmanyhypotheses(Jason,1992).Forexample,onecouldtestthehypothesisthatactivelyparticipatinginmorecommunityeventsleadstohigherratingsofsocialsupport.Inturn,greatersocialsupport(i.e.,interdependence)couldrelatetogreaterwell-being.Assumingthatsocialsupportandwell-beingcanbeobservedinasuitablydesignedstudy,then,thesetwohypothesescreateatestablemodelbasedonKelly’stheory.

Theprimaryroleoftheoryinempiricalinquiryistosuggestimportantresearchquestionsbyhypothesizingmechanismsandmakingpredictions.ItispossiblemanycommunitypsychologistshaveusedKelly’sEcologicalTheorytoexplainwhattheyhavestumbledupon(i.e.,Reichenbach’s(1938)contextofdiscovery).Withthisideology,theremaybeapreferencetoexplainafter-the-factphenomena,andthedangerhereisthattheinvestigatorwhohasstumbleduponaconceptinpracticemightoverstateitasatheory.Fartoooften,thetheoryisnomorethananafterthought,asmentionedabove,usedtoexplainwhatthefindingsareratherthanpredictingwhattheyshouldbeapriori.Therefore,weproposeherethatKelly’secologicalconceptsarebettercharacterizedandusedasaframeworkwhichcanbeemployedasaguidetodeveloptestablemodels.

PsychologicalSenseofCommunityTheory

OverviewofPsychologicalSenseofCommunityTheory

AnotherinfluentialcommunitypsychologytheoristwasSarason(1974),whoseinsightwasthataPsychologicalSenseofCommunitywasafeelingthatemergedasafunctionoftheinteractionoftheindividualandthecontext.Hedescribedthistheoryasfollows:“theperceptionofsimilaritytoothers,anacknowledgedinterdependencewithothers,awillingnesstomaintainthisinterdependencebygivingtoordoingforotherswhatoneexpectsfromthem,thefeelingoneispartofalargerdependableandstablestructure”(p.157).ThisdefinitionincorporatesmanykeyaspectsofCommunityPsychology,suchasthenotionthatanindividualexistswithinalargernetworkandstructureandthattheseindividualsareinterdependent.Inparticular,senseofcommunitytheoryclaimsthatifpeoplefeelthattheyexistwithinalargerinterdependentnetwork,theyaremorewillingtocommittoandevenmakepersonalsacrificesforthatgroup.Whenthistheorywasinitiallyproposed,therewasconsiderableenthusiasmfortheideaanditwassoonconsideredoneofthefoundationalconstructsofthedevelopingfieldofCommunityPsychology.

Whilesimilarconstructshavebeenproposedinotherdisciplines,noneisaperfectmatchforsenseofcommunity.Senseofcommunityisfeelings-basedratherthanbasedonarationalevaluationofthefulfillmentofaperson’sneedsoraspirations.Senseofcommunityismorethanthe“cohesion”thatistypicallymeasuredinindustrial/organizationalsettings(e.g.,Kozlowski&Ilgen,2006),ascohesionisoftenmarketbased,anditdoesnotneedemotionalconnectiontoaccomplishtasks.Senseofcommunityisalsomorethanthepositivegroupfeelings,suchas“morale,”thataretypicallystudiedbypositivepsychologists(Peterson,Park,&Sweeney,2008).Inaddition,espritdecorpsmeasuredby



militarypsychologists(e.g.,Manning,1991)focusesmoreonpositiveaffectinmilitaryactivities.

Intheory,theconstructsenseofcommunityambitiouslyattemptstodescribebothindividual-levelfeelingsofconnectednessandtheimplicationsthesefeelingshaveonbehaviorsandsettingsaswellasthereciprocalwaysinwhichdifferentsettingscanfacilitatefeelingsofconnectednessandrelatedbehaviors.Butsenseofcommunityisanaggregateconstructandnotanindividualmeasure,andtheessentialfeatureishowthemembersofthelargergrouporentityaffecttheindividualfeelingsofcommunity.Likeaflockofgeesethatfliesasaunifiedentity,thecollectiveassessmentiscritical.Inessence,ratherthanassessingsenseofcommunitybyoneperson’sobservation,itisessentialfortheretobearepresentativesampleofindividualstotapthisconstruct.Onecouldmeasure“one”person’ssenseofbelongingtoagroup,butthissingleobservationwouldnotcapturethegroup’ssenseofcommunity.

Inpractice,attemptstooperationalizetheseconceptsovertheyearshavebeenmetwithvarioustheoreticalandmethodologicalchallenges.Forexample,senseofcommunityhasbeenvariouslyconceptualizedfromplace-based(locational)communities(i.e.,neighborhoods)tomoregeneralizedandabstractcommunities(relationalcommunities)(Bess,Fisher,Sonn,&Bishop,2002;Bishop,Chertok,&Jason,1997),thusmakingthescopeofmeasurementmoredifficultandlessgeneralizable.Thisvarietycanintroducealevelofimprecisionifthesedifferentialapplicationsoftheconceptarenotexplicitlyoutlinedandinvestigated.Furthermore,becausetheconceptofsenseofcommunityattemptstocaptureinteractionsbetweendifferentlevelsofinfluence(e.g.,individualfeelings,relationalbehaviors,andsettingfeatures),designingmeasuresthatcapturethismultidimensionalityhasalsobeendifficult(Jason,Stevens,Ram,2015).Inoneattempttofurtherspecifythiscomplexity,Brodsky,Loomis,andMarx

(2002)haverecommendthatresearchersbegintoconceptualizeandmeasuremultiplesensesofcommunity.Thatis,themultiplepossiblenestedsettingsthatmayeachposeinterrelated,butoftendifferent,sensesofcommunity.Theypostulatedthatthesensesofcommunityexperiencedinmultiplesettingslikelyinteractwitheachotherandthatunderstandingamorecompleteconstellationofsenseofcommunitywouldhelptobetterunderstandsenseofcommunityinanyoneparticularsetting.Forexample,"whenaresearcherpredeterminesthePSOC[psychologicalsenseofcommunity]targetcommunity,itisunclearifthatcommunityhasthesamesalienceand/orimportancetoallresearchparticipants.Thustheaggregatecommunitymeasuremaybemoremeaningfulasanindicatorofindividuals'commitmenttothecommunity,butbelessusefulasanindicatorofindividualoutcome"(Brodskyetal.,2002,p.332).

Despitethesechallenges,communityresearchershavetheorizedandtestedanumberofscalesaimedatoperationalizing“senseofcommunity.”Perhaps,mostnotably,McMillanandChavis(1986)proposedthisconstructtohavefourdimensions:membership,fulfillmentofneeds,sharedemotionalconnection,andinfluence.MoreoverPeterson,Speer,andMcMillan(2008)developedtheBriefSenseofCommunityScale,an8-itemscaletomeasurethesefactors.Inaddition,Bishop,Chertok,andJason(1997)proposedanoperationalizationofsenseofcommunityusingtheconstructsofmission,connections,andreciprocalresponsibility.Thecorrespondingmeasurementscale,thePerceivedSenseofCommunityScale,wasintendedtobelesstiedtogeographiclocation(i.e.,neighborhood)thanpreviousscales.

Mostrecently,Jason,StevensandRam(2015)havesuggestedthatsenseofcommunityoffersauniqueinformationwhenexamininganindividual’sexperienceaspartofasystem.Theyconceptualizedthisexperienceasaresultofanindividualbeingpartofthree



ecologicallevels.ThelargestlevelisEntity,theunituponwhichthecommunityisformulated(e.g.,neighborhood,school,ororganization).Inordertotapintothisdomain,theyincorporateditemsthatrefertocharacteristicsofthegroup,suchascommongoals,purpose,andobjectives.Thenextlevel,,Membershipreferstotherelationshipsbetweenthemembersofthegroup(e.g.,neighborsonablock,studentswithinaschool).Finally,atthethirdandnarrowestlevel,or“theindividual,”isSelf,whichassessesthemeaningfulness,commitment,andemotionalconnectionexperiencedbymembers.Improvingonpriorattemptstocapturesenseofcommunity,thisrepresentationoftheconstructhastheadvantageofprovidingadetailedperspectiveontheinteractiverelationshipbetweenanindividual’sownexperiencewithinagroupandcharacteristicsofthatgroup,attemptingtocapturehowtheseaspectsrelatetohisorherwell-being.Inasense,thisdefinitioncapturesSarason’squotereferredtoabove,definingpsychologicalsenseofcommunityascomprisingmultiplelevels--astablestructure(Entity),interdependencewithothers(Members),andawillingnesstomaintaininterdependence(Self).

EvaluationofPsychologicalSenseofCommunityTheory

Capturingtheessenceofsenseofcommunityinvalid,reliable,andgeneralizabletermshasbeenchallengingforcommunitypsychologists(e.g.,Nowell&Boyd,2010).Whilehundredsofresearchstudieshaveutilizedsenseofcommunityasaconstruct,peoplecontinuetodevelopsenseofcommunityinstrumentsbecauseofadissatisfactionwithcurrentinstruments.Inotherwords,measurementissuesincludeconceptualcomplexity,suchastheempiricaloverlapbetweenthe3or4identifiedfactors.Brodskyetal.’s(2002)observationthatsenseofcommunityoperatesatmultiplelevelsexplainswhymanymeasurementeffortshaveencounteredconceptualproblemswhenattemptingtocaptureagroupconceptusing

individuallevelassessments.Forexample,McMillanandChavis’(1986)4-factorstructurehasnotgenerallybeenconfirmedbyfactoranalyticstudies(Chipuer&Pretty,1999;Stevens,Jason,&Ferrari,2011).Whenithasbeenconfirmed,suchasinPeterson,Speer,andMcMillan’s(2008)BriefSenseofCommunityScale,thecorrelationoffactorsissohighthatitsuseattheindividualfactorlevelisproblematic.OthershavetriedtoreformulatetheMcMillanandChavismodel,suchaswhenLongandPerkins(2003)retainedthreefactorsconsistingofsocialconnections,mutualconcerns,andcommunityvalues.Thelatentmeasurementmodel,however,didnottranslateintoacceptablereliabilitiesatthesubscalelevel.Scalesmeasuringotherformationsofsenseofcommunity,suchasthePerceivedSenseofCommunityScale(Bishop,Chertok,&Jason,1997),whileperhapshavingmorereliability,alsohaveprovedtobeproblematicinvariousways(Stevens,Jasonetal.,2012),asfactoranalysesrevealedthatnegativelywordeditemsloadedtogether.

However,therehasbeenrecentprogressonaninstrumentthatisdesignedtocapturetheecologicalstructureofsenseofcommunityatthreelayers(Jason,Stevens&Ram,2015).Usingthesethreelevels,theSelf,theinteractionswithothers(Membership),andtheorganization(Entity),abrief9-itemquestionnairehasbeendevelopedwithgoodpsychometricpropertiestoassesssenseofcommunity.Thepreliminaryevidencesuggeststhateachdomainisanecessarybutnotsufficientcomponentofsenseofcommunity.Forexample,apersonmightexperienceastrongsenseofEntity,butnotofMembershiporSelf,andinsuchasituation,heorshemaynothaveastrongsenseofcommunity.Jason,StevensandRam(2015)havefoundempiricalsupportforsuchaconceptualizationofsenseofcommunitywithgoodmeasurementmodelfitandinternalreliabilities,andthefindingshavenowbeenreplicatedwithacommunitysampleandusedtopredicttworecoveryhomephenomenaof



houseoperationsandmembertrust(Jason,Stevens,&Light,inpress).

Understandingtheboundaryconditionsorlimitsofthesenseofcommunityconceptisalsoofcriticalimportance.Furtherprogressisneededinoutliningthecontextsinwhichthisconceptapplies,suchaswhetherdifferentculturalcommunitiesmaytendtovariouslyweightdifferentsettingsasmoreorlessimportantintermsofsenseofcommunity(i.e.,presentdifferentconstellationsofmultiplesenseofcommunity)andwhatkindsofimplicationsthathasforthegeneralizableapplicationofrelatedmeasures.Forexample,gangsorviolentextremistgroupsmighthavesimilarsenseofcommunityscorestothoseengagedinmorepositiveactivitiessuchasteamsports.Inaddition,senseofcommunityisastatesoitchangesdynamicallyovertime.Itisalsopossiblethatdifferentlevelsofsenseofcommunitymightnotbepredictiveoflargebehavioraldifferences(Davidson&Cotter,1993).Evenifthisisthecase,however,theconceptmaystillbepredictiveofimportantunusualbehaviorinspecificcontexts.Asanexample,duringonesummerinChicagowhentherewasanextremeheatwave,senseofcommunitymayhavebeenwhatmotivatedneighborstocheckonsingleelderlypeople,savingmanylives.However,fromatheoreticalpointofview,havingamorenarrowandfocuseddescriptionincreasesthelikelihoodthatonecandirectlytestthetheory,andthatthiscanimprovethecreationofthemeasurementandthetest.Ifaddressedinfutureresearchefforts,betterunderstandingtheboundaryconditionsandmagnitudeofeffectofthesenseofcommunityconceptcouldaidinitsusewithinthefieldasapredictiveandexplanatoryconcept.Thiswould,ofcourse,improveitsstandingasaclearlydefinedandrigorousscientifictheorycapableofcapturingindividual-contextinteractionsinusefullyreplicableterms.

Inthepriorsection,weconcludedthatKelly’stheorymightbestbedescribedasaframework.Itispossiblethat,giventhe

consistentpastattemptsatandtherecentprogressinoperationalizingtheconstruct,thesenseofcommunityconceptmay,infact,meetthecriteriafortheoryasdefinedinthisarticle.However,weproposethatbycontinuingtopursuevalidandreliablemeasuresoftheconstructandbybetterdefiningitsboundaryconditions,senseofcommunitycanbewieldedmoreeffectivelyandmorerigorouslyasatheoryintermsofsatisfyingminimumstandardsofpredictionandcontrol.

Empowerment

OverviewofEmpowermentTheory

Fromtheverybeginning,Rappaport(1987)statedthatatheoryofempowermentshouldbeabletooutlinethelimitsoftheconstructanddescribetherangeofsituationsinwhichitisgeneralizable.Furthermore,Rappaport(1987)indicated,

CommunityPsychologyasafieldofstudyhasreachedatimeinitsdevelopmentwhentheorymustbeproposed,tested,andmodified.Withouttheory,afieldcannotlongsurviveasascientificenterprise.Withouttheorytheapplicationsofafieldmustbecomeincreasinglycutofffromthesharpedgeofscientificcritique.(p.122)

HereweevaluatehowwellRappaport’stheoryasitisusedtodayhasintegratedtheseideals.

In1981,RappaportwroteaninfluentialarticleonEmpowermentTheorytitled:“Inpraiseofparadox:Asocialpolicyofempowermentoverprevention.”Rappaport(1981)proposedatheoryofempowermentthatoutlined4characteristics:1)Individualscanbeviewedascompleteentitieshavingbothneedsandrights;2)attentionmustbepaidtoparadox;3)therearebothdivergentanddialecticalsolutionstosocialproblems;and4)thereisasymbolicsenseofurgencyinunderstandingandsolvingsocialproblems.Inotherwords,peopleshouldnotbeviewed



unidimensionally.Inaddition,astherearemyriadsolutionsandopportunitiesforsolvingcommunityproblems,itisnotoptimaltoimplementsingle-barreledsolutionstomostsocialissues.

Believing“theoryisessentialtothematurationofanyfieldofseriousscientificstudy,”Rappaport(1987)latermadeacaseforempowerment,anddefineditinthefollowingway:

Ihavesuggestedthatempowermentisaprocess,amechanismbywhichpeople,organizations,andcommunitiesgainmasteryovertheiraffairs.Consequently,empowermentwilllookdifferentinitsmanifestcontentfordifferentpeople,organizations,andsettings…Isuggestedthataconcernwithempowermentleadsustolookforsolutionstoproblemsinlivinginadiversityoflocalsettings,ratherthaninthecentralizedsinglesolutionsofamonolithic"helping"structure,wherehelpisconsideredtobeascarcecommodity…(pp.122).

Inhis1987article,Rappaportexpandeduponhisearliernotionsbyprovidinganoutlineof“11assumptions,presuppositions,andhypothesesbuiltintoatheoryofempowerment”(Rappaport,1987,p.139).Theseincluded:empowermentisamulti-levelconstruct;theradiatingimpactofonelevelofanalysisontheothersisassumedtobeimportant;thehistoricalcontexthasanimportantinfluenceontheoutcomesofaprogram;theculturalcontextmatters;longitudinalresearchisdesirableandperhapsnecessary;empowermentisfurtheraworldviewtheory(e.g.,participantsareconsideredcollaborators,andthechoiceoflanguageisimportant);theconditionsofparticipationinasettingpredictsempowerment;anorganizationwithanempowermentideologywillbebetteratfindinganddevelopingresourcesthanonewithahelper-helpeeorientation;locally

developedsolutionsaremoreempoweringthangeneralsolutions;sizesofsettingsmatter;and,onceadopted,empowermentexpandsresources.AccordingtoRappaport,theseassumptionssuggestthatthegoalordependentvariableofourcommunityinterventionsshouldinvolveempowerment.

EvaluationofEmpowermentTheory

Wewillfirstconsiderhowwellempowermentdescribesaphenomenonofinterest,aswellastheimportantquestionofwhetheradefinitionofempowermentisgenerallyagreedupon.AninitialquestionishowRappaport’sdefinitionisdifferentfromagency,autonomy,volition,perceivedcontrol,andtheself-efficacyofsomeaction.Rappaport(1987)doesclearlyputagreatemphasisontheinteractionoftheindividualandenvironment,yetdoesnotclearlyspecifyhowtomeasurethisconstruct.Asaresult,empowermentcouldbeviewedastheabilitytoinfluenceandorganizepeople(Christens,Peterson,&Speer,2011),orasaprocess,asapsychologicalstate,orastheactofgivingsomeonepowerorbeinggivenpower,orevenallofthesearguablydistinctphenomena.Ifthefundamentaldescriptionisvariableandsubjecttodifferentinterpretations,thisposeschallengesnotonlyintermsofmeasurementbutalsointermsofpredictionandcontroldescription,whicharetheminimalstandardsofatheory.

Furthermore,byspanningecologicallevels,theremightbeadditionalproblemswiththeconsistencyofmeaning.Forexample,anempoweredorganizationmightbeverydifferentthananempoweredindividual.Onecompanymightbeempowered,inthatitisveryefficientandhasagrowingmarketshareandpower,andyettheexperienceofempowermentmaybeverydifferentforanindividualwithinthatorganization.Thatindividualmightfeelunempoweredifforcedtomeetunrealisticefficiencyexpectations,allinaneffortfortheoverallorganizationtobeperceivedasempowered(particularlyamongthemanagement).Inotherwords,thecore



definitionofempowermentmaybedifferentattheorganizationalandindividuallevel,andifgeneralmasteryandcontroloverone’sfutureisthecoreconstruct,thenthismightbemanifestedverydifferentlyatdifferentorganizationallevels.ThisissupportedbyZimmerman(1995)whoassertedthat“empowermentmaybeanopen-endedconstructthatisnoteasilyreducedtoauniversalsetofoperationalrulesanddefinitions…themeasureswedevelopforonestudymaynotbeappropriateforanother”(pp.583).Itcouldevenbearguedthatempowermentreallyonlymakessenseforindividuals,asitisultimatelyaperceptionofefficacy,andorganizationsdon’thaveperceptions.Therefore,ifaconstruct’sdefinitionisambiguous,operationalizationsofitarelikelytobeaswell.

Althoughthefoundationworkforempowermentoccurredover30yearsago,thereremainsaneedforaclearandconsistentdefinition.Forexample,CattaneoandGoodman(2015)usedempowermentasthebasisforunderstandingdomesticviolencepractice,butalsoconcludedthereisaneedforaconsensusontheprecisedefinition.Hunter,Jason,andKeys(2013)focusedonmeasuringempowermentwithinaspecificpopulationinaspecificcontext,andfoundthattheconstructissogeneralastoimpedeaccuratemeasurement.Becauseithasbeenmeasureddifferentlybydifferentinvestigators,eachwiththeirownpurposes,thecriterialackconsistency,hinderingitsuseasatheoryforthefield.Ifnumerousresearcherseachhavetheirowninterpretationsofthetheoryanddeveloptheirownmeasures,thenaccumulationofevidencefor(oragainst)thetheoryisnotpossible.Beingstuckatadescriptivephasewithoutaconsensusdefinitionthuslimitsthescopeandimpactofthetheoreticalconstructbecausenewevidencecannoteasilybeinterpretedassupportingorrefutingthetheory.

Furthermore,theempowermentconceptdoesnotgivespecificdirectionsor

predictionsregardingmechanisms.Thereisnosystematicwayofpredictingorevaluatingdifferencesandlikelihoodsofoutcomes(e.g.,Borsboom,2013).Therefore,fromatheoreticalpointofview,Rappaporthasneitherdescribedthebasicmechanismsatwork,normadepredictionsabouthowthecontextmightalterthis.Although,morerecently,researchers(e.g.,Christens,Peterson,&Speer,2011)haveattemptedtomakespecificpredictionsregardingEmpowermentTheory,theremaybesomedebateaboutwhethertheirpredictivetestsflowdirectlyfromthattheory.ThismightalsoapplytoPeterson’s(2014)workonorganizationalempowerment(Peterson&Zimmerman,2004)andmeasurementframeworksforempowermentatmultiplelevelsofanalysis(Peterson,2014).Thetheoreticalfoundationofempowermentwouldbesturdierandultimatelytestableifempowermenttheoristscameupwithapredictionregardinghowempowermentmightworkinagivensituationratherthansayingthereisnosinglewayofempoweringentities.Thiswouldallowfornewhypothesesandnewpredictions.Insummary,becausetheempowermentconceptlacksaconsensusdefinition/consistentformulationanddoesnotatpresenthavepredictivecapabilities,itdoesnotmeetthequalificationsoftheoryasoutlinedhereandmightbetterbereferredtoasaframework.

Discussion

Whenusingtheoriesinthewayoutlinedinthisarticle,differenttasksneedtooccuratdifferentstagesofthetheorydevelopmentprocess,andtheobjectiveorgoaloftheresearchgenerallyshapesthenatureoftheinvestigation.Intheexploratorystageofscientificresearchandtheorydevelopment,qualitativeandmixedmethodsareoftenusedinordertoobtainrichdescriptionsofthephenomenonofinterest.Attheexploratorystage,itiscriticaltodevelopmeasuresthatcorrelatewitheachother,andthiscanbedonewithcross-sectionaldesigns;hopefullythesemeasuresvaryenoughtobeableto



capturechangeovertime.Itisnotessentialtomakeacausalargumentatthispoint,butaninvestigatormaymakepredictionsfromthesedata.Duringthenextstepoftheorybuildingandtesting,theinvestigatormaybegintomakespecificpredictions.Thismaybedonethroughlongitudinaldata,inordertodetermineatemporalsequenceofcauseandeffectorthroughexperimentaldata,todeterminesituationalcauseandeffect.Thetheoryisthenputintopractice,anditsgeneralizabilityisevaluated.Thisprocessisiterative,andovertime,boundaryconditionsemergeascertainpropositionsarefoundtobelimitedtospecificpeople,settingsandtimes.

CommunityPsychologyhasoftenbeencharacterizedbyexploratoryresearch,whichhasanimportantroleindescribingaphenomenonandgettingaconceptualhandleonpotentiallyimportantcausalmechanisms.However,furtherdevelopmentisrequiredformakingpredictionsregardingthephenomenaofinterest.Thegoalofexploratoryresearchistolearnaboutaphenomenonwithoutnecessarilyimposingastructureonit.Informationfromthisexploratorystagelaterinformsapreliminarystructureforthisphenomenon,makingitpossibletocomeupwithamodelthatdescribeshowpeopledothingsinaparticularway.ThisstageofexploratoryresearchisakintoReichenbach’s(1938)contextofdiscoverywherethejustificationorfalsificationoftheoriesisnotyetcentral.Itisnotuntiloneengagesinthecontextofjustificationthatatheorybeginstoform.Inordertodevelopagoodtheory,atastartingpoint,onemustalsobeconcernedwiththedevelopmentofagreeduponandpsychometricallysoundmeasuresandtheutilizationofrigorousmethodstotestemploythosemeasure.ThisstageoftheorydevelopmenthasoccurredlessofteninthefieldofCommunityPsychology.

Therehavebeenmanychallengestothedevelopmentandtestingoftheoriesforthefield,andtheconceptsreviewedaboveallencounteredsignificantobstaclesto

developingaconsensusdefinitionandmeasurementframework.Inaddition,itispossiblethatmanytheorieswithinthefieldofCommunityPsychologyarebettercharacterizedasframeworks,whichdonotspecifyrelationshipsthatcanbeusedforexplanation.Thereneedstobemorediscussionaboutwhetherframeworksareusefulandhowcommunitypsychologistscanprogressfromframeworkstomorerigoroustheory.Finally,thesomewhatideologicalnatureofCommunityPsychology(puttinggreatvalueonparticipatoryresearch,attemptingdirectactiontoimprovepeople’slives,etc.)canresultinlesswillingnesstoconsidertheoryinthetermsdescribedhere.

CommunityPsychologyisprobablyoneofthemorecomplexfieldsinthesocialsciencesbecauseitembracesmultiplelevelsofinfluenceratherthansimpleindividualdifferences.Thiscomplexityhasbeenachallengefortheorydevelopmentandtesting.Communitypsychologistsgenerate,accumulate,consolidate,andleverageknowledgebasedonevidencewiththegoalofimprovingpeoples’lives,especiallythosewhosuffermostfromsystem-levelforces.Ifsomecommunitypsychologistsfeelthatknowledgeisuniqueandnotgeneralizable,thentheseinvestigators’functionmayberelegatedtosimplyoneofreporting.Weasauthorsproposethatsignificantprogresstowardthisgoalofhelpingtoimprovelivescouldoccurwiththemorerigorousdevelopmentandtestingoftheories.Furthermore,weproposethatexperimentaldesignsarethemosteffectivetoolinthisprocessoftheorytesting(e.g.,tripleblind,randomizedassignment,unbiased,longitudinaldesigns).Weakerformsoftheorytesting(e.g.quasi-experimental—non-randomassignmentwithcontrols)lackstrongevidentiarypower.Evenweakerdesigns(e.g.,observational/cross-sectional)aremoreproperlythoughtofasgenerallyexploratoryandifmodeledapriori,atbestweakevidenceforconfirming/disconfirmingahypothesis.Ifmodeledex-post,these



designsarereallydescriptiveexercisesspeculatingapathforfutureinvestigation.

TheincorporationofcontextinatheoreticallymeaningfulwayisanothernecessaryingredientforafullymaturefieldofCommunityPsychology.Wearenotalwaysevenawareofthepotenteffectsofanindividual’scontext,andthereisevidencethattheenvironmentcanhaveprofoundeffectsonthingsthathavebeenconsideredgeneticallyderived.Forexample,Ravellietal.(1998)investigatedprenatalexposuretofaminewhenduringthelatterpartofWorldWarII,theGermansseverelyreducedfoodsupplytotheNetherlands.Prenatalexposuretofamine,especiallyduringlategestation,waslinkedtodecreasedglucosetolerancewhentheinfantsbecameadults.Theyconcludedthatpoornutritioninuterocanleadtopermanentchangesininsulin-glucosemetabolism,andtheenvironmentaleffectoffamineonglucosetolerancewasespeciallyimportantinpeoplewholaterbecameobese.

Theimportanceofcontextisoftennotrecognizedorintegratedincommunitypsychologystudies,asdataisfrequentlyobtainedatthelevelofindividuals.Thissuggeststhatthefieldisstillatanembryonicstageofdevelopment.However,emergingworkusingtheoryrelatedtodynamicsystemsdoespresentanopportunitytosystematicallyinvestigatesettings.BeforeCommunityPsychologyreallybegantoformcohesiveideasaroundcontextualimpacts,sociologistswereattemptingtodeveloptheoriesandmethodsthatcapturesocialcontexts.TheirSociology-of-Knowledgetheoriesareillustrativeandhavebeenusedtounderstandpeople’sperceptionsofreality,socialchange,andtheroleofsocialinstitutions(Berger,1977;Merton,1968;Strauss,1997).Borrowingfromthesetheoriesmighthelpuscaptureasystemspointofview.Forexample,wholenetworktheoreticalapproachescanprovidearelationalmapofsomesocialecosystemsincaseswheresystem-widedyadicrelationshipsmaybeexhaustivelymeasured.

Dynamictheoriesofwholesocialnetworksfocusonthemutualinterdependencebetweenrelationshipsandbehaviorchangeovertime,providingawaytoconceptualizeandempiricallydescribetwo-waytransactionaldynamics(Jason,Light,&Callahan,2016).

Yet,indefiningandoperationalizingconstructs,weoftenfindsomeofthemostseriouschallengestothefieldofCommunityPsychology,asillustratedwithourdiscussionofempowerment.Suchissuesoccurinotherfieldsaswell,ascriterionvariance(i.e.,differencesintheformalinclusionandexclusioncriteriausedclassifydataintocategories)accountsforthelargestsourceofdiagnosticunreliability(Jason,&Choi,2008).Criterionvarianceismostlikelytooccurwhenoperationallyexplicitcriteriadonotexistforcategories(Spitzer,Endicott,&Robins,1978),orwhentherearevaryingcriteriaforaphenomenontobedefined.Whencategorieslackreliability,theupperboundaryonthevalidity(i.e.,usefulness)ofacategoryisinherentlylimited.Therefore,criterionvarianceoccursbecauseoperationallyexplicitcriteriahavenotexistedortherehasnotbeenaconsensusamonginvestigatorsforthecriteria.Fortheorydevelopment,thereisafundamentalneedfortheprovisionofoperationallyexplicitcriteriaandreliableinstrumentstomeasurethephenomena.

ThisisevidentinHeller’s(2014)argumentaboutcommunities;thereisoftenalackofacleartheoreticalstatementabouthowcommunitiesshouldbeconceptualized.Partoftheproblemstemsfromthehighlyvariabledefinitionof“neighborhoods,”whichcanrangefromablockinaresidentialcommunitytoanon-linenetwork.Inaddition,thereareanumberofmediatorsofneighborhoodeffects,includingthequalityofresources(e.g.,libraries,schools,parks),levelofcommunityintegration(e.g.,membershowknoweachother),andthequalityofsocialtiesandinteractions.Thesedebatesaboutmeaninganddefinitionareunderpinnedby



importantdifferencesinperspective,anditmaynotalwaysbepossibletomergeoralignthesedifferences.Howcommunitiesandrelatedconstructs“should”bedefinedisadeeplyculturalquestion,withmanydifferentanswers.Inspecifyingauniversallyapplieddefinitionforthesephenomena,researchersruntheriskofprivilegingonegroup’sdefinitionoverothers.Itthenbecomesanissueofwhohasthepowertodefinetheseconstructs.Oneofthestrengthsofcommunitypsychologyisthatwedoaskthosequestionsofscience(i.e.,who’sdefinitionareyouusing?Isthisapplicationofa“generalized”definitionoppressiveinthatitprivilegestheideasofthedominantgroup?).Thismaybesomeofthelegitimatereasoningbehindareluctancetodefinesometheoriesinthewayswehaveoutlined.Werecognizethattheseareimportantissuestoconsiderandoffertheaboveobservationsasoneperspectivethatwehopewillspurfurtherthoughtfuldiscussionaroundhowwecanengageintheoreticalrigorwhileacknowledgingthepotentialimplicationsthishasintermsofpitfallsrelatedtopowerandprivilege.

Themethodologythatisusedmaynaturallyflowfromtheory,butthisisonlypossibleinthecontextofclearlyarticulatedtheory;itisnecessarytosuccinctlyarticulatethemeasurementofaconstructbeforeatheorycanbeadvanced,refined,orarguedagainst.Inthefieldofpersonalitypsychology,wehaveseentheevolutionofthemeasurementofthe“BigFive”overthe20thcenturyandtheappealofthismodelhasbeenlargelyduetodevelopmentofmeasures;currently,therearefulltheories(e.g.,WholeTraitTheory,Fleeson&Jayawickreme,2015)thatareemergingthatwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthemeasurementworkofthe20thcentury.Thelackofsuchdevelopmentisaprimarycriticismoftheempowermentliterature,inthatthemeasurementoftheconstructsarestillill-definedandunder-developed.

Thereareseverallimitationsinthisarticle.Forexample,whereasothers’effortsidentifyissuesrelatedtoaphilosophyofscienceandrelateddefinitionsoftheorywereempiricalandconceptual(Faust&Meehl,1992),oureffortswithinthisarticleweretoidentitytheorieswithinthefieldofCommunityPsychologyaswellastoexaminehowwelltheyallowustomorefullyunderstandindividualbehaviorbytakingintoaccountthecontextwithinwhichthepersonlives.Inaddition,inthisarticle,wehavenotbeenabletoexaminealltherelevanttheorieswithinthefieldofCommunityPsychology.

Conclusions

ThefieldofCommunityPsychologyfocusesoninterestingquestionsandtriestounderstandthem,withtheimplicithopethatastheserelativelyspecifictopicsbecomebetterunderstood,thattheywillstarttocoalesceintolargerstructures.ItislikelythatmanytopicsinCommunityPsychologywillnevercoalescearoundonetheory,becausetheyare,indeed,complexsystemscomprisingmultiplemechanismsofchange.Forinstance,medicineasaclinicalpracticeisbasedaroundbiology,genetics,behavioralscience,organizationaltheory,etc.Whenengineersdesignairplanes,theyuseresultsfromfluiddynamics,electronics,computersystems,materialsscience,humanpsychology,etc.ItmightbeagoodideatobeopentothispossibilityinCommunityPsychology--thatatitsheartitisanareaofstudythatbringstogetheravarietyoffactors(andtheories)affectinghumanbehavior.

AstartingpointfortheorydevelopmentinCommunityPsychologymaystillneedtobeatthedescriptivelevel,wherespecificationisaboutaparticularpopulationinaparticularcontext,employingvalidatedmeasuresforthephenomenaofinterest.ThefieldofCommunityPsychologywillbenefitfrominvestigatorsusingsimilarmeasurestoassessparticulartheories,aswellasthedevelopmentofsimplerandmoredirecttheoriesofperson-settingsimilarities.This



consistencyandparsimonywillhelpthefielddevelopandtesttheoriesallowingforpredictionandexplanation.

Therehasbeenareluctancetoattemptthedevelopmentofmorerigorousandpredictivetheory,inpartbecauseitisnotseenasamajorgoal,comparedtotakingaction.However,thereisnoobviousreasonwhysoundtheorycannotbedevelopedthataccomplishestheempowermentandparticipatorygoalsofCommunityPsychology,butdoessoinawaythatisscientificallyrigorous.This,however,wouldrequireCommunityPsychologytoevolveinadifferentdirection,oneinwhichtheentirecollaborativeenterprisebetweencommunitypsychologistsandcommunitiesisconsideredtobetheobjectofstudy,withthesuccess,orlackthereof,ofanintendedchangeastheultimateoutcomeofinterest.

Forexample,wedobelievethatthereisconsiderablepotentialforexploringtheinfluenceofcontextualfactorsonhumanphenomenathatincorporatehowthird-orderchangeoccursandhowitimpactscommunities.Third-orderchangeisanessentialshiftinthesocialfabric,wherebyacommunitychangescustomaryassumptions,worldviews,causeandeffectrelationships,

andpractices(Bartunek&Moch,1987).Communitiesinwhichthird-orderchangeoccurshavedevelopedacultureofcontinualquestioning,constantlyidentifyingproblemsandsocialprecipitantstoproblems,implementingsolutions,andengaginginongoingprocessandoutcomeevaluationsforthesesolutions.Third-orderinterventionsalsohavethepotentialtocreateunexpectedpositivechanges,assettingsdevelopnewwaysofviewingproblemsandfunctions(Robinson,Brown,Beasley,&Jason,2015).Whilesuchchangemaybeaidedbyorfacilitateempowerment,third-orderchangeisdistinctinthatitemphasizesafundamentalongoingmonitoringandchangeratherthanemphasizingautonomyandself-direction.Thereisaneedfortheoriestocapturethesetypesofphenomena,andasystemstheoryperspectivethatincludesalltheseelementsmaybeapromisingapproach.Inaddition,thegoalforCommunityPsychologytheoriesshouldideallyspecifywhatspecificaspectsofcontextinfluencewhatspecificaspectsofindividuals.Furthermore,possiblespecificmechanismsbywhichthisoccursshouldbearticulatedtoserveanexplanatoryfunctiontoguidethedevelopmentofmeaningandevidentiaryargumentsforcausality.

Notes1Twofeaturesofsomerecentliteratureinphilosophyofscienceisespeciallyrelevant.First,thepossibilityofreliabletestingofscientifictheories(ofwhateverlevelofgenerality)dependsontheavailabilityofasuitablevocabularyofnaturalkinds:avocabularyfordescribingthekinds,relations,magnitudes,etc.thatarecausallyimportantfactorsintherelevantphenomena.Thismeansthattheoreticalandempiricalworkinsortingoutorientingframeworksisinfactabsolutelycentraltoscientificmethodsingeneral,notjustincommunitypsychology.Moreover,therelevantcausalfactorsmayoftenturnouttointeractwithoneanotherincomplicatedways,therebycausingdifficultyforresearchers,theorists,andscientistsingeneral(seeBoyd2010;Oyama2000;Wilsonetal2009).Theissuescommunitypsychologistsfacemaybetypicalinthesciencesingeneral,inotherwordstheyarenotpeculiartocommunitypsychology.Second,thepluralismofcompetingapproachesthatseemstodescribethescientificstatusofcommunitypsychologyisalsocommonplaceinscience.Infact,itisalmostcertainlyessentialinmostcasesinwhichscientistssortoutconceptualandmethodologicalissues(seeChang,2004,2012).

References

Ainsworth,M.D.S.,&Bell,S.M.(1970).Attachment,exploration,andseparation:Illustratedbythebehaviorofone-year-oldsinastrangesituation.Childdevelopment,49-67.

Ajzen,I.(1991).Thetheoryofplannedbehavior.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,50,179-211.

Argyris,C.(1993).Knowledgeforaction:Aguidetoovercomingbarrierstoorganizationalchange.Jossey-BassInc.,Publishers,SanFrancisco,CA.

AshleyD.,&Orenstein,D.M.(2005).Sociologicaltheory:Classicalstatements(6thed.).Boston,MA:PearsonEducation.

Barker,R.G.(1968).Ecologicalpsychology:Conceptsandmethodsforstudyingtheenvironmentofhumanbehavior.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Bartunek,J.M.,&Moch,M.K.(1987).First-order,second-order,andthird-orderchangeandorganizationdevelopmentinterventions:Acognitiveapproach.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,23(4),483–500.doi:10.1177/002188638702300404

Bacharach,S.B.(1989).Organizationaltheories:Somecriteriaforevaluation.TheAcademyofManagementReview,14(4),496-515.doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308374

Beasley,C.R.,&Jason,L.A.(2015).Engagement&disengagementinmutual-helpaddictionrecoveryhousing:Atestofaffectiveeventstheory.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,55,347-358.

Berger,P.(1977).Facinguptomodernity.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Bess,K.D.,Fisher,A.T.,Sonn,C.C.,&Bishop,B.J.(2002).Psychologicalsenseofcommunity:Theory,research,andapplication.InA.T.Fisher,C.C.Sonn,&B.J.Bishop(Eds.),Psychologicalsenseofcommunity:Research,applications,andimplications(pp.3–22).NewYork,NY:KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

Biglan,A.,&SloaneWilson,D.(2015).Thenurtureeffect:Howthescienceofhumanbehaviorcanimproveourlivesandourworld.Oakland,CA:NewHarbinger.

Bishop,P.D.,Chertok,F.,&Jason,L.A.(1997).Measuringsenseofcommunity:Beyondlocalboundaries.JournalofPrimaryPrevention,18(2),193-212.

Borsboom,D.(2013).Theoreticalamnesia.Website:Opensciencecollaboration.Availableat:http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2013/11/20/theoretical-amnesia/

Boyd,R.(2010).Realism,naturalkindsandphilosophicalmethods.InH.Beebee&N.Sabbarton-Leary(Eds.).Thesemanticsandmetaphysicsofnaturalkinds.NewYork,NY:Rutledge.

Bourdieu,P.(1986).Theformsofcapital.InJ.Richardson(Ed.)Handbookoftheoryandresearchforthesociologyofeducation(pp.241-258).NewYork,NY,Greenwood.

Bowlby,J.(1980).Attachmentandloss(Vol.3).NewYork,NY:Basicbooks.

Brodsky,A.E.,Loomis,C.,&Marx,C.M.(2002).ExpandingtheconceptualizationofPSOC.InA.T.Fisher,C.C.Sonn,&B.J.Bishop(Eds.),Psychologicalsenseofcommunity:Research,applications,andimplications(pp.319–335).NewYork,NY:KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

Bronfenbrenner,U.(1979).Theecologyofhumandevelopment:Experimentsbynatureanddesign.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Cattaneo,L.B.&Goodman,L.A.(2015).Whatisempowermentanyway?Amodelfordomesticviolencepractice,research,andevaluation.PsychologyofViolence,5,84-94.

Chang,H.(2004).Inventingtemperature.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Chang,H.(2012).IswaterH2O?Evidence,realismandpluralism.NewYork,NY:Springer

Chipuer,H.M.,&Pretty,G.M.H.(1999).Areviewofthesenseofcommunityindex:Currentuses,factorstructure,reliability,andfurtherdevelopment.JournalofCommunityPsychology,27(6),643-658.



Christens,B.D.,Peterson,N.A.,&Speer,P.W.(2011).Communityparticipationandpsychologicalempowerment:Testingreciprocalcausalityusingacross-laggedpaneldesignandlatentconstructs.HealthEducation&Behavior,38,339-347.

Colebrook,L.(1956).AlexanderFleming1881-1955.BiographicalmemoirsoffellowsoftheRoyalSociety,2,117–126.

Davidson,W.B.,&Cotter,P.R.(1993).Psychologicalsenseofcommunityandsupportforpublicschooltaxes.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,21,59-66.

Dohrenwend,B.S.,&Dohrenwend,B.P.(Eds.).(1981).Stressfullifeeventsandtheircontexts.NewYork:NealeWatsonAcademicPublications.

Faust,D.,&Meehl,P.E.(1992).Usingscientificmethodstoresolvequestionsinthehistoryandphilosophyofscience:Someillustrations.BehaviorTherapy,23(2),195-211.

Feynman,R.(1997).Surelyyourjoking,Mr.Feynman.NewYork,NY:W.W.Norton.

Fishbein,M.&Ajzen,I.(1975).Belief,attitude,intention,andbehavior:Anintroductiontotheoryandresearch.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Flay,B.R.&Schure,M.(2012).ThetheoryofTriadicInfluence.InWagenaar,A.C.&Burris,S.C.(Eds.).Publichealthlawresearch:Theoryandmethods.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Fleeson,W.,&Jayawickreme,E.(2015).Wholetraittheory.JournalofResearchinPersonality,56,82-92.

Foster-Fishman,P.G.,Nowell,B.,&Wang,H.(2007).Puttingthesystembackintosystemschange:aframeworkforunderstandingandchangingorganizationalandcommunitysystems.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,39,197–215.

Foucault,M.(1991).Disciplineandpunish:Thebirthofaprison.London,Penguin.

French,J.R.P.,Jr.,Rodgers,W.L.,&Cobb,S.(1974).Adjustmentasperson-environmentfit.InG.Coelho,D.Hamburg,&J.Adams(Eds.).Copingandadaptation(pp.316-333).NewYork,NY:BasicBooks

Habermas,J.(1984,1987).TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction.Vols.1and2.Boston,MA:Beacon.

Hawkins,J.D.,Catalano,R.F.,&Associates.(1992).Communitiesthatcare:Actionfordrugabuseprevention.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass,Inc.

Heller,K.(2014).Communityandorganizationalmediatorsofsocialchange:Atheoreticalinquiry.InT.P.Gullotta&M.Bloom(Eds.)Encyclopediaofprimarypreventionandhealthpromotion(2ndedition),pp.294-302.NewYork,NY:Springer.

Hoyningien-Huene,P.(2006).ContextofdiscoveryversuscontextofjustificationandThomasKuhn.InJ.Schickore&F.Steinle(Eds.).Revisitingdiscoveryandjustification,(pp.119–131).Netherlands:Springer.Availableat:http://cfcul.fc.ul.pt/Seminarios/hoyningen-huene_Discovery%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf

Huber,F.(2008).Assessingtheories,Bayesstyle.Synthese,161(1),89-118.doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9141-x

Hunter,B.A.,Jason,L.A.&Keys,C.B.(2013).Factorsofempowermentforwomeninrecoveryfromsubstanceuse.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,51,91-102.PMCID:PMC3893098

Jason,L.A.(1992).Eco-transactionalbehavioralresearch.TheJournalofPrimaryPrevention,13,37-72.

Jason,L.A.&Choi,M.(2008).Dimensionsandassessmentoffatigue.InY.Yatanabe,B.Evengard,B.H.Natelson,L.A.Jason,&H.Kuratsune(2008).Fatiguescienceforhumanhealth.(pp1-16).Tokyo:Springer.



Jason,L.A.,Light,J.,&Callahan,S.(2016).Dynamicsocialnetworks.InL.A.Jason&D.S.Glenwick(Eds.).Handbookofmethodologicalapproachestocommunity-basedresearch:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethods.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Jason,L.A.,Keys,C.B.,Suarez-Balcazar,Y.,Taylor,R.R.,Davis,M.,Durlak,J.,Isenberg,D.(Eds.)(2004).Participatorycommunityresearch:Theoriesandmethodsinaction.AmericanPsychologicalAssociation:Washington,D.C.

Jason,L.A.,Stevens,E.,&Light,J.M.(inpress).Therelationshipofsenseofcommunityandtrusttohope.JournalofCommunityPsychology.

Jason,L.A.,Stevens,E.,&Ram,D.(2015).Developmentofathree-factorpsychologicalsenseofcommunityscale.JournalofCommunityPsychology,43,973-985.

Jiang,C.(1998).Whysometheoriesfailtodescribe,explain,andpredict:Reconstructingthefuture.TheSocialScienceJournal,35,645-656.doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(98)90033-7

Kelly,J.G.(1968).Towardanecologicalconceptionofpreventiveinterventions.InJ.W.CarterJr.(Ed.).Researchcontributionsfrompsychologytocommunitymentalhealth(pp.76-100).NewYork,NY:BehavioralPublications.

Kelly,J.G.(1979).Adolescentboysinhighschool:Apsychologicalstudyofcopingandadaptation.Hillsdale,N.J:L.ErlbaumAssociates.

Kelly,J.(2006).Beingecological.Anexpeditionintocommunitypsychology.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kerlinger,F.N.(1986).Foundationsofbehavioralresearch.FortWorth,TX:Holt,RinehartandWinston.

Kerr,N.L.(1998).HARKing:Hypothesizingaftertheresultsareknown.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,2,196-217.

Kingry-Westergaard,C.,&Kelly,J.G.(1990).Acontextualistepistemologyforecologicalresearch.InP.Tolan,C.Keys,F.Chertok,&L.A.Jason(Eds.)Researchingcommunitypsychology.Issuesoftheoryandmethods.(pp.23-31).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Kloos,B.,Hill,J.,Thomas,E.,Wandersman,A.,Elias,M.J.,&Dalton,J.H.(2012).Communitypsychology:Linkingindividualsandcommunities.(ThirdEdition).(pp.360-363)Stamford,CT:Wadsworth.

Kozlowski,S.W.,&Ilgen,D.R.(2006).Enhancingtheeffectivenessofworkgroupsandteams.PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,7(3),77-124.

Latané,B.(1981).Thepsychologyofsocialimpact.AmericanPsychologist,36,343-356.

Lewin,K.(1946).Actionresearchandminorityproblems.JournalofSocialIssues,2,34–46.

Long,D.A.,&Perkins,D.D.(2003).ConfirmatoryfactoranalysisofthesenseofcommunityindexanddevelopmentofabriefSCI.JournalofCommunityPsychology,31(3),279-296.

Marcuse,H.(1969).Anessayonliberation.Boston:Beacon.

Manning,F.J.(1991).Morale,cohesion,andespritdecorps.InR.Gal&A.D.Mangeladorff(Eds.).Handbookofmilitarypsychology(pp.453-470),WestSussex,UK:JohnWiley.

Martín-Baró,I.(1994).Writingsforaliberationpsychology.InA.Aron&S.Corne(Eds.),Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

McAdams,D.P.,&Pals,J.L.(2007).Theroleoftheoryinpersonalityresearch.InR.W.Robbins,R.C.Fraley,&R.C.Krueger(Eds.).Handbookofresearchmethodsinpersonalitypsychology.NewYork,NY:TheGuilfordPress.

McMillan,D.W.,&Chavis,D.M.(1986).Senseofcommunity:Adefinitionandtheory.Journalofcommunitypsychology,14,6-23.



Meehl,P.E.(1967).Theory-testinginpsychologyandphysics:Amethodologicalparadox.PhilosophyofScience,34,103-115.

Meehl,P.E.(1978).Theoreticalrisksandtabularasterisks.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,46,806-814.

Merton,R.K.(1968).Socialtheoryandsocialstructure.NewYork,NY:FreePress.

Moos,R.H.(1986).Thehumancontext:Environmentaldeterminantsofbehavior.Malabar,Florida:KriegerPublishingCompany.

Moritsugu,J.,Vera,E.G.,Wong,F.W.,&Duffy,K.G.(2013).Communitypsychology.(5thEdition).UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey:Pearson.

Nowell,B.&Boyd,N.(2010).Viewingcommunityasresponsibilityaswellasresource:Deconstructingthetheoreticalrootsofpsychologicalsenseofcommunity.JournalofCommunityPsychology,38,828-841.

Nozek,B.,&Bar-Anan,Y.(2012).Scientificutopia:I.Openingscientificcommunication.PsychologicalInquiry,23,217-243.

O’Donnell,R.G.Tharp,&Wilson,K.(1993).Activitysettingsastheunitofanalysis:Atheoreticalbasisforcommunityinterventionanddevelopment.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,21,501-520.

Oyama,S.(2000).Evolution’seye.London.DukeUniversityPress.

Patterson,C.H.(1986).Theoriesofcounselingandpsychotherapy.Philadelphia:Harper&Row.

Peterson,N.A.,Speer,P.W.,&McMillan,D.W.(2008).ValidationofaBriefSenseofCommunityScale:Confirmationoftheprincipaltheoryofsenseofcommunity.JournalofCommunityPsychology,36(1),61-73.

Peterson,C.,Park,N.&Sweeney,P.J.(2008).Groupwell-being:Moralefromapositivepsychologyperspective.AppliedPsychology,57,19–36.

Peterson,N.A.(2014).Empowermenttheory:Clarifyingthenatureofhigher-ordermultidimensionalconstructs.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,53,96-108.doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9624-0

Peterson,N.A.,&Zimmerman,M.A.(2004).Beyondtheindividual:Towardanomologicalnetworkoforganizationalempowerment.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,34,129-145.doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040151.77047.58

Popper,K.R.(1968).Thelogicofscientificdiscovery.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.

Quattrochi-Tubin,S.,&Jason,L.A.(1980).Enhancingsocialinteractionsandactivityamongtheelderlythroughstimuluscontrol.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,13,159-163.

Rappaport,J.(1981).Inpraiseofparadox:Asocialpolicyofempowermentoverprevention.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,9,1-25.

Rappaport,J.(1985).Thepowerofempowermentlanguage.SocialPolicy,16,15-21.

Rappaport,J.(1987).Termsofempowerment/exemplarsofprevention:towardatheoryforcommunitypsychology.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,15(2),121-148.

Rawls,J.(1971).Atheoryofjustice.Camridge,MA:Belknap.

Ravelli,A.C.,vanderMeulen,J.H.,Michels,R.P.,Osmond,C.,Barker,D.J.,Hales,C.N.,&Bleker,O.P.(1998).Glucosetoleranceinadultsafterprenatalexposuretofamine.Lancet,351,173-77.

Reichenbach,H.(1938).Experienceandprediction:Ananalysisofthefoundationsandthestructureofknowledge.Chicago,Il:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Robinson,W.L.,Brown,M.,Beasley,C.,&Jason,L.A.(2015).Preventionandpromotioninterventions.InM.A.Bond,C.Keys,&I.Serrano-Garcia(Eds.).Handbookofcommunitypsychology.Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.



Rogers,C.R.(1959).Atheoryoftherapy,personality,andinterpersonalrelationshipsasdevelopedintheclient-centeredframework.InS.Koch(SeriesEd.)&S.Koch(Vol.Ed.),Psychology:Astudyofascience(Vol.3,pp.184-256).NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.

Rutter,M.(1985).Resilienceinthefaceofadversity.Protectivefactorsandresistancetopsychiatricdisorder.BritishJournalofPsychiatry,147,598-611.

Ryan,W.(1976).Blamingthevictim.NewYork,NY:Vintage.

Sarason,S.B.(1974).Thepsychologicalsenseofcommunity;prospectsforacommunitypsychology.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Sen,A.(2009).Theideaofjustice.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Seidman,E.(1988).Backtothefuture,CommunityPsychology:Unfoldingatheoryofsocialintervention.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,16,3-24.

Sheikh,S.,Safia,Haque,E.,&Mir,S.S.(2013).Neurodegenerativediseases:Multifactorialconformationaldiseasesandtheirtherapeuticinterventions,JournalofNeurodegenerativeDiseases,ArticleID563481,8pages,2013.doi:10.1155/2013/563481

Spitzer,R.,Endicott,J.,&Robins,E.(1978).Researchdiagnosticcriteria.ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry,35,773-782.

Spreitzer,G.,Sutcliffe,K.,Dutton,J.,Sonenshein,S.&Grant,A.(2005)Asociallyembeddedmodelofthrivingatwork.OrganizationScience,16,537-549.

Srivastval,S.,&Cooperrider,D.L.(1986).Theemergenceoftheegalitarianorganization.HumanRelations,39(8),683-724.

Strauss,A.L.(1997).MirrorsandMasks.RutgersUniversity,NJ:TransactionBooks.

Stevens,E.B.,Jason,L.A.,&Ferrari,J.R.(2011).MeasurementperformanceoftheSenseofCommunityIndexinsubstanceabuserecoverycommunalhousing.AustralianCommunityPsychologist,23,135-147.

Stevens,E.B.,Jason,L.A.,Ferrari,J.R.,Olson,B.,&Legler,R.(2012).Senseofcommunityamongindividualsinsubstanceabuserecovery.JournalofGroupsinAddictionandRecovery,7,15–28.PMCID:PMC4217488

Tebes,J.K.(2005).Communityscience,philosophyofscience,andthepracticeofresearch.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,35,213-230.doi:10.1007/s10464-005-3399-x.

Tebes,J.K.(2012).Philosophicalfoundationsofmixedmethodsresearch.Implicationsforresearchpractice.InL.A.Jason&D.S.Glenwick(Eds.).Methodologicalapproachestocommunity-basedresearch(pp.13-31).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociationPress.

Tolan,P.,Keys,C.,Chertok,F.,&Jason,L.(1990).ResearchingCommunityPsychology:IssuesofTheoryandMethods.WashingtonDC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Trickett,E.J.,Watts,R.J.,&Birman,D.(1994).Humandiversity:Perspectivesonpeopleincontext.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

VandeVen,A.H.(1989).Nothingisquitesopracticalasagoodtheory.AcademyofManagementReview,14(4).486-489.doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308370

VonBertalanffy,L.,(1969).Generalsystemtheory.NewYork:GeorgeBraziller.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1981).Thegenesisofhighermentalfunctions.InJ.V.Wertsch(Ed.).TheconceptofactivityinSovietpsychology.Armank,NY:Sharpe.

Wandersman,A.,Chavis,D.,&Stucky,P.(1983).Involvingcitizensinresearch.InR.Kidd&M.Saks(Eds.),Advancesinappliedsocialpsychology(pp.189–212).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Weiss,H.M.,&Cropanzano,R.(1996).Affectiveeventstheory-Atheoreticaldiscussionofthesturcture,causes,andconsequencesofaffectiveexperiencesatwork.pdf.ResearchinOrganizationalBehavior,18,1–74.



Wilson,R.A.,Barker,M.J.&Brigandt,I.(2009).Whentraditionalessentialismfails:Biologicalnaturalkinds.”PhilosophicalTopics,35(1and2).

Yalom,I.D.(2005).Thetheoryandpracticeofgrouppsychotherapy:5thEdition.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Zimmerman,M.(1995).Psychologicalempowerment:Issuesandillustrations.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,23,581-599.

Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice · Theories in the Field of Community Psychology...

Documents

Transcript of Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice · Theories in the Field of Community Psychology...