Our Reflections on the Reactions to “Theories in the Field of Community Psychology”
Leonard A.
Jason
Ed
Stevens
Daphna
Ram
Steven A. Miller
Rosalind Franklin
DePaul University
University of Medicine
and Science
Christopher R.
Beasley
Kristen Gleason
Washington
University of
College
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
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, and Diana Ohanian for their
helpful comments and suggestions.
Recommended Citation: Jason, L.A., Stevens, E., Ram, D. Miller, S.A., Beasley, C.R.,
Gleason, K., (2016). Our Reflections on the Reactions to “Theories in the Field of
Community Psychology”. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(2),
pages 1-9. 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
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 2
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
February 2016
OurReflectionsontheReactionsto“TheoriesintheFieldofCommunity
Psychology”
Werecognizethatourarticle(Jason,Stevens,Ram,Miller,Beasley,&Gleason,2016)will
becontroversial,andwearedelightedthatithassparkedsomelivelydiscussions.Our
thesis is that research in our field could benefit from being evaluated on how it
contributes to theory (including the development of one’s own). We believe that this
recommendationrepresentsasignificantandconstructivestepforward.Ourreflections
onanumberoftheissuesraisedbythosewhowrotereactionstoourarticlearebelow.
Paradigms,Meta-Models,and
PhenomenonofInterest
Severalauthorsofthereactionpapers
questionwhywedonotrefertoKuhn’s
(1962)writingsregardingparadigms.
Paradigmsarenotidenticaltotheories,and
Kuhn(1962)claimed(amongotherthings)
thatparadigmschangedwhensetsoftheories
thatexistwithinparadigmsfailtoaccountfor
anomalousfindings.Ifthisconceptualization
of“paradigm”iscorrect,anytheoryitself
mightnotaccountforafindingbecauseof
issuesinatheory,notintheparadigmasa
whole.But,ifthisisindeedwhatismeant,
thenamuchbroaderdiscussionofparadigms
isnecessary.Unfortunately,Kuhn(1962)uses
theterm“paradigm”indozensofdifferent
ways(e.g.,seeMadsen,1988).Thismakesit
difficulttoexaminetherelevanceof
paradigmstoscienceingeneral.Thereisalso
criticismofKuhn(1962)beyondhis
somewhatvagueconceptionofwhat
constitutesaparadigm(Mayo,1996;
Scheffler,1967).Furthermore,thewayin
whichparadigmschangehasbeendebated.
Kuhnarguesthattransitionsbetween
paradigmsrelatetoallornothingrejections
ofparadigms,whereasscienceoften
transitionsslowlythroughconversations
aboutthemeritsofspecificpointsratherthan
abruptlyandallatonce.Thus,theKuhnian
characterizationoftheparadigmmaybea
mischaracterizationofthewaythatscience
works,andthishasfurtherledtoour
avoidanceofit.Additionally,withinthefield
ofpsychology,theterm“paradigm”hasbeen
usedinevenmorenumerouswaysthanitis
usedbyKuhn(1962).Indeed,bookshave
beenwrittenontheproblematicusageof
paradigmsinpsychology(seeO’Donohue,
2013)–assessingitsusefulnessto
discussionsofpsychologicaltheoryisbyno
meansstraightforward(Grove,2006).In
short,whiletheparadigmconceptiscertainly
relatedtotheoreticaldevelopment,itraises
additionalcomplexissuesthatcannotbe
adequatelyaddressedinourarticle.
Inadditiontoseveraloftheauthorsasking
whywedonotconsiderparadigms,Maya
Jariego’s(2016)reactionpieceencouragesus
toincludeotherconstructs(e.g.,meta-model,
meta-theory)aswell.Whilethereisaplaceto
considerthesebroaderconcepts,weare
examiningtheroleoftheoriesperserather
thanconstructslargerthantheories.Neal’s
(2016)paperaskswhetherwehavetheories,
orsimplybroad,generalframeworksthat
pointtophenomenonofinterest.Indeed,Neal
(2016)claimsthatphenomenonofinterest
arebroaderthaneithertheoriesor
frameworks,andbecausetheymaybeless
articulatedthaneitherintheir
amorphousness,theymaybethoughtofas
providingmorebreadth.However,thereis
nothinginourargumenttotheeffectthat
breadthisabadthing,buteventuallybreadth
hastogivewaytoscientificspecificity
ForTebes(2016),becausemodelsareless
conceptual,theycanhelpscienceprogress,
andwebelievethatifthereisenough
persuasiveevidencethatagivenmodel
“works,”itcanleadtoabroaderconceptual
picture,whichwewouldrefertoasatheory.
Butwecontinuetobelievethatframeworks,
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 3
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
models,andthelikeneedtohavesomekind
ofunderlyingmotivationaldirection,i.e.a
theorythatprovidesabroaderand
empiricallyaddressableexplanationforhow
thesocialworldworks.Modelsmay
encompassarepresentationofasingletheory
(e.g.,perFigure1intheoriginalpaperby
Jasonetal.,2016),ormodelsmayrepresenta
collectionoftheories.Inotherwords,amodel
representsthemeasuresandtheirrelations
thatarejointlybeingtestedtogiveevidence
ofatheory’svalidity.Therefore,a
misspecifiedmodelorapoorlymeasured
modelmaymaskorattenuateevidence
relativetothetheoreticalassertion.
Perspectivism,Pragmatism, Feminism,
andCriticalTheory
Tebes(2016)suggeststhatfourphilosophical
foundationsforourfield–perspectivism,
pragmatism, feminism,andcriticaltheory
moveourfieldawayfromalogicalempiricist
approach,toonethat“embracescatalyticor
transformative change”(p.7)Criticaltheory
oftenplacesanevaluativeoutcomeonthe
purposeandthereforetheutilityofthe
phenomena.However,ifwewanttoreduce
racism,forexample,wewanttheoriesthat
canhelpuspredict,describe,andexplainthe
developmentanderadicationofracism.
Feministtheoryisanotherlens,which
providespeopleaperspectivetoorganizeand
aggregateevidencethatdescribesand
predictsandexplainsphenomena.Tebes
(2016)appearstobelievethatonecanadopt
perspectivist,feminist,critical,andaction
orientedapproachesandstillbeanadvocate
forthetraditionalscientificmethod;yetatthe
sametime,hebelievesourfieldneedsto
moveawayfromlogicalempiricist
approaches.Tebesandauthorsofother
reactionpapersbelievethatthistraditional
scientificmethodisoftenquitelimited
becausetheyperceivethetheoriesare
constrainedbynarrowlydefinedparameters
andcontexts.
February 2016
WeagreewithTebes(2016)thatfeminism,
criticaltheory,andaction-orientedresearch
exploreareasthatmanyscientistshavenot
subjectedtothesametypesofempirical
testingorempiricalconstraints,andthese
approachescanprovideresearcherswith
newideasandviewsoftheworld.Onecould
arguethattheseapproachesshouldhavean
evidencebasednarrativethatarguesforcause
andeffectofcatalyticortransformative
change.Thiswouldallowanindependent
observertoconcludethesefoundationshave
ledtoanunderstandingthatwouldallowa
predictiveresult,ifsimilareffortswere
undertaken.Ifcontextplayssuchasignificant
rolethatresultscannotbepredictive,thefield
couldcontinuetoinvestigatethesecontextual
boundariesorconditions.Eachlensshould
demonstratethatitprovidessomeusefulness
inabetterunderstandingofaphenomenaand
themechanismsbywhichoutcomescanbe
achieved.
AlthoughTebes(2016)suggestsfour
underlyingphilosophiesasanemphasisfor
thefieldratherthantheory,webelievethese
philosophiescanguideourtheory
constructionratherthansupplantthem.For
example,realism,perspectivism,andthe
resultingcriticalmultiplismsuggestaneed
foravarietyoftheoriestohelpexplain
phenomenafromavarietyofperspectives.
Giventhecurrentdearthofcommunity
sciencetheory,thisperspectivemaybe
neededforacompleteunderstandingof
phenomena.Wecouldbeleadingthewayin
integratingcontextintomultileveltheory
development.Similarly,feminismandcritical
philosophiescaninformtheorydevelopment
bysuggestingprocessesandoutcomesof
participatory,diverse,andaction-oriented
approachesaswellastheoriesassociated
withoppressionandliberation.Forexample,
therehasbeensomediscussionofthird-order
change,butthereiscurrentlynocohesive
underlyingtheoryoftheprocessforsuch
changetooccur.Robinsonetal.(2016)have
writtenaboutthisprocessinacommunity
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 4
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
context,andparticipatory,diverse,and
action-orientedapproachestobuilding
communitycapacityseemtobeanaturalfit
withsuchprocesses.
Williams(2016)suggeststhatinpursuing
generalizabletheories,psychologicalresearch
runstheriskofprivilegingtheperspectiveof
thedominantgroup.Inculturalandcrossculturalpsychology,thishaslongbeena
concernasmanyofourmostcherished
psychologicaltheorieshavebeendeveloped
intheWestandthentransportedtoother
cultures.Inmanycases,itisquitepossible
thatifoneattemptedtoexplainandtestthe
samephenomenafromwithinthecultural
frameworkoftheseothersocieties,different
explanationswithabetterfitinthatcontext
mayarise,thushelpingtodefineboundary
conditionsforatheory.Wedothinktheseare
importantissuestoconsider.
ApplicationwithinCommunityPsychology
Lorion’s(2016)reactionpiece,harkingback
toLewin(1951),arguesthatthereisnothing
sousefulasempiricalfindings.Itispossible
thatLorionwasadvocatingfortheproduction
ofsuchfindingsindependentoftheoriesor
pastresearch.However,itisunclearhowone
arrivesinsuchaplace;ifitwerepossible,
perhapsLorionwouldbecorrect.Fora
practitioner,anideaofhowtointervenein
thefirstplaceisnecessary,andourargument
isthattheoriesshouldbeawaytoprovidea
wayforward,andthattheshakystateof
theorywithinourfieldcanmakethisdifficult.
Christens(2016)arguesthatthemove
towardtheorytestingwouldnegatethevery
importantroleofcommunitypsychologyin
solvingproblems(i.e.,apragmaticapproach).
Indeed,thepragmaticapproachis
particularlyrelevanttoselectingissuesfor
psychologiststoaddress,anditisnot
contradictorytotheclaimswemake.Rather,
webelievethatthewayinwhichissuesare
addressedbasedontheoryshouldcarefully
articulatepremisesthatareatworkin
interventions.Inthisway,theremightbe
February 2016
morepragmaticapplicationsinthefuture.
However,thecarefulwayinwhichthings
couldbetestedisnotanattempttomovethe
fieldtoonewhosefocusisstrictlyontesting
theory;rather,itistheuseofcarefultheory
testingintheprocessofaddressingrealworldproblems.
WeagreewithChristens(2016)andMaya
Jariego(2016)thatcommunitypsychologists
shouldbechangeagentsinavarietyof
settingsandfordifferentcauses,butthisdoes
notnegatetheroleoftheories.Webelieve
thatevenapparentlyusefulinterventions
havecostsassociatedwithalackof
understandingastohowtheyactuallywork.
Forexample,ifthereareirrelevantparts
includedwithincommunityinterventions,
duetolackofattentiontotheorecalissues,
theymaycostmoreinmoneyandtimethan
theyshould,andparticipantscouldbe
providedadoseofanirrelevantintervention.
WebelievethatKeys(2016)isrightinnoting
thattherehasbeenatendencytooversimplifyintheallegedinterestofincreased
rigor,butattheend,histhesiscouldhavea
consequenceofthepathof“endless
exploration,”neverculminatinginany
scientifically-based“knowledge.”His
utilizationofamusicalanalogycanbe
extendedtoexplainwhytheoryisimportant:
thereisnomusicwithouttheory,asrandom
notesplayedonrandominstrumentsdonot
createmusic.Musiciscreatedbyhavinga
foundationoftheoryregardinghowpitch,
tempo,andphrasingcreateamusical
experience,andevenimprovisedmusichas
structure(e.g.Gillespie,1979).Musichaslots
ofgenresandvariety,buteachofthesehas
distinctivedefiningmusicalstructures.
Sciencedoesnotdiscouragediversityof
voices.Infact,itisperhapstheonlyfieldthat
arguesagainstanytypesofauthority.In
addition,theargumentfordiversitywithouta
groundinginempiricismcouldbeunethicalif
oneweretoadheretothemaxim,“firstdono
harm.”Well-intentionedactivismwith
vulnerablepopulationswithouttheoretical
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 5
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
andempiricalbasishasinthepastresultedin
someharmfulintent(e.g.,attemptsto"reeducate"nativeamericanchildrenduringthe
lastcentury).
Methods
WithregardstotheWilliams’s(2016)
commentaboutprivilegingofquantitative
methods,thiswasnotourintentionperse,
butratheraconsequenceofthefactthat
quantitativemethodsfitmosteasilyintoour
conceptionofhowscienceproceeds.Indeed,
wewelcomeanattempttoshowhow
qualitativemethodscouldbeusedina
contextofscientificjustification.
Furthermore,thecontextofdiscoveryisnot
irrelevant–indeed,itiscruciallyrelevant–
andanareawherequalitativeworkcould
contributetotheorydevelopment.When
writingourarticle,wedecidednottoaddress
howtheoriescorrespondedtomethods,asa
fullexplorationoftheory-method
relationshipswouldbeanextensivetask.
However,Williams(2016)iscorrectinthat
thisisanareathatshouldbefurther
explored.
WeagreewithBarileandSmith(2016)that
randomizedcontrolledtrials(RCTs)have
theirstrengths,butalsoimportantand
inherentweaknesses,particularlywhen
socialcontextneedstobeconsidered.Our
articledoesnotsuggestthesoleuseofRCTs;
itonlysuggestedspecifyinghypothesesa
priori.BarileandSmith(2016)arguethattoo
strongafocusongeneralizabletheory,and
especiallyonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsas
ameanstoachieverigoroustheory,can
hampertheexplorationofinnovative
methodologicalapproachesthatcapture
context.Indeed,theirargumentthat
randomizedcontroltrialsoftenartificially
erasesomeimportantperson-context
interactionsisparticularlyrelevanttoour
workascommunitypsychologists.Until
researchershaveaverysolidideaofwhatthe
randomizedcontrolledtrialsshouldbe
lookingat(i.e.,whatactuallyis“ignorable”in
February 2016
thecontext),multivariatemethodscanoften
beusedtoobtainmoreveridicalresults.In
otherwords,wemustnotimplement
randomizedcontrolledtrialsprematurely—
indeed,thisismoreappropriatetooccur
whentheverytheoreticalunderstandingwe
advocatefor,hasproceededtoapointof
somereasonableverification.
AsproposedbyBarileandSmith(2016),two
recentpapers(Jasonetal.,2014;Lightetal.in
press)specificallyproposethesocialnetwork
frameworkasonewaytocapturesocial
contextundersomecircumstances.These
papersareasmethodologicalastheyare
substantiveintone,arguingthatthe
theoreticalconceptionofsmallgroup
dynamicsascomplexsystemsfitsquite
naturallywiththemethodologicalapproach
suppliedbynetworks,andthelongitudinal
modelingframeworkofconditionalMarkov
processes(e.g.Snijders,vandeBunt,&
Steglich’sStochasticActormodeling(2010)).
Perhaps,asthenetworkapproach(andother
morecontextualapproachessuchas
multilevelmodels)becomesmorefamiliar,
graduateprogramsinCommunityPsychology
mayroutinelyincludetraininginthese
methods.
Conclusion
Ourarticleandthethoughtfulreactionshave
begunaproductivepointandcounterpoint
dialoguetowardsthegoalofbetterdefining
anddifferentiatingtheory,framework,
phenomenaofinterest,etc.Ingeneral,the
reactionpapersnicelysumupalternativesto
theviewpointthatwepresent.Wedoagree
thatsituationsareoftencomplex,unique,and
requiremultilevel,multicomponentanalyses
andinterventions.Inaddition,asRhodes
(2016)mentions,thethreeprominent
theorieshighlightedinourarticlewerebuilt
onafoundationfromtheoristsinotherfields,
andshementionsobjectionsraisedbyother
reactorswhoclaimthatourtheorieswillnot
beabletocompetewithspecificityachieved
inotherdecontextualizedpsychological
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 6
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
disciplines.Wedonotargueagainstopenness
todiverseperspectives,butratherwhether
thisopennessleadstogeneralizable
knowledge.Wemightalsoaddthatother
appliedareassuchashealth(Brannon,Feist,
&Updegraff,2013),environmental(Steg,van
denBerg,&DeGroot,2012),and
industrial/organizationalpsychology(Levy,
2009)explicitlycommunicatecoretheoriesin
theirrespectivefields.
Tebes(2016)maintainsthattheunderlying
theview ofsciencebasedonlogical
empiricismisinherentlyflawedduetolackof
independencefrompolitical,cultural,and
socialinfluences.Thisconclusiondoesargue
forgreaterparticipationbydiversevoices.
Ultimately,scientifictheoriespersistor
diminishbasedontheirutility.Wedisagree
thatlogicalempiricismlacksvaliditydueto
thepossibilityofbiasfromthosefundingand
performingresearch.Thatistosaythata
systemicbiasshouldbeidentifiable,andthat
randombiasshouldbeeliminatedbymultiple
observations.Tebes(2016)isrighttopoint
outthatcurrentphilosophiesofscienceare
characterizedbyrealism;wedonoteschew
describinghow“phenomenainteractinthe
world”(Tebes,2016,p.6),butfocuson
explanationandprediction.Logical
empiricismisnotoverturnedbyarealist
perspective,butexpandedbyit;wedonot
addressargumentsofrealism(whichsomeof
theauthorsareverysympatheticto),but
focusonaspectsofpredictionand
explanation.Foramorethoroughdiscussion
ofrealismwithsomeinquiryintological
empiricsm,seerecentworkbyHaigandEvers
(2016).Some(e.g.,Psillos,2011)haveargued
thatReichenbach’sprogramwastosetupthe
foundationforrealism.Rejectingperspectives
sympathetictoexplanationandprediction
meansarguingagainstevidenceandtheory,
andplacingourfieldoutsidethepurviewof
thescientificendeavor.
Formanyinourfield,itappearsthatwhatis
mostimportantisthatchangebeproduced,
andexplicationsaboutthemechanismsof
February 2016
changereceivefarlessattention.Thisstance
isrootedincommunitypsychology’sorigins
inquasipolitically-motivatedactivism.Inthis
respect,communitypsychologyoffersa
valuableperspectiveonsocialproblemsand
socialchange,andawayofknowing.Inour
view,however,thesegoalsneednotbe
inconsistentwithscientificrigor.Itisthe
natureofhumanstoviewtheworldthrougha
socio-culturallens.Thishasbeenanissuefor
physicalsciencetoo,suchaswithGalileo,who
wasfamouslyrejectedbycontemporaries
becausehisviewswerenotcompatiblewith
theworld-viewofthethendominantcatholic
church.Thechurch’sviewsthusstoodinthe
wayofscientificprogressforquitealong
time.However,feminism,criticaltheory,and
action-orientedresearcharethemselves
basedoncertainassumptionsregardinghow
theworldworks—thefactthatthese
assumptionsmaydifferfrommainstream
culturalviewsorprevailingscientific
conceptualizationsdoesnotnecessarilymean
thattheyarecorrect.Approachesneedtobe
investigatedscientifically,andiftheyarenot,
thenthereislittlebasisforevaluatingthem,
anymorethanthereisforevaluating
theologicalviews.Scientificmethodsgiveus
theonlyknownwaytoseewhetherone’s
assumptionsarecompatiblewith
observations,andthusprovideanantidote
for“action”basedonunverifiedandpossibly
incorrectormateriallyincomplete
assumptions.
Inaddition,wefullyendorseexploratory
research,andwedonotargueforsimply
confirmatorytesting.Buteveninexploratory
work,theorygeneration,theorysupport,and
theorydisconfirmationshouldbepartofthe
discussionprocess.Attheendofthisprocess,
onecantakeinallthegatheredevidence,from
disparatemethods,andaskwhatarethe
theoreticalimplicationsoftheevidence.We
continuetofeelthatevidenceshouldpoint
thefieldindirectionsthatcreateknowledge
accumulativelyratherthanasisolated
evidenceornarrativesthatstandalone.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 7
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Inouroriginalpaper(Jasonetal.,2016),we
donotdiscusstheimportanceofscienceasa
collaborativeandcumulativeknowledge
endeavor,withtheoryplayingacentralrole.
Exploratoryresearchcertainlyplaysan
importantroleinthiscumulativeprocess,but
theoriesprovidealinguisticframeworkfor
communicatingideaswithinandacross
disciplinesclearlyandefficiently.Other
researcherscanthenconfirm,reject,or
modifytheseideas.Forexample,Tebes
(2016)suggeststhelimitedapplicabilityof
sometheoriesliketheTheoryofPlanned
Behavior(Ajzen,1985),whichbetterpredicts
intentionthanactualbehavior.However,this
isadatedtheory,andtheoriesareoften
modifiedandcombinedwithone-another.
Forexample,theHealthActionProcess
Approach(Schwarzer&Luszczynska,2015;
Sutton,2008)incorporateselementsfrom
staticintentiontheorieswithchangeprocess
theories.
Anotherissuewedonotaddressinour
originalpaper(Jasonetal.,2016)istherole
oftheoryinpreventingfalsepositives.While
theorydoesnotinoculatesciencefromthis
risk,itdoessomewhatlimitittofalse
positivesthatfitwithpastandcurrent
theories.Falsepositiveshaveproliferatedin
thefieldofpsychologyand
areexacerbatedbythefiledrawereffect
andexploratoryresearchthatlacks
replication,whichisoftenthecasein
psychologicalresearch.
Berkowitz’s(2016)reactionarticle
emphasizedthattheideathatusing
frameworksisausefulone,andwewhole
heartedlyagreewiththisstatement:
“Ultimately,thepractitionermustfocuson
whatworks”(p.3).Ontheotherhand,
alongsidethisverypracticalstatement,letus
notforgetKurtLewin’s(1951)maxim,“There
isnothingsopracticalasagoodtheory.”Our
hopeisthatourarticlemightencourage
practitionersandresearcherstogivemore
carefulconsiderationtotheoretical
formulationanddevelopmentasacritical
February 2016
stepalongthepathwaytopragmatically
usefulknowledgeandsocialchange.
References
Ajzen,I.(1985).Fromintentionstoactions:
Atheoryofplannedbehavior.InJ.Kuhl
&J. Beckman(Eds.).Action-control:
Fromcognitiontobehavior.(pp.11-39).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Barile,J.P.,&Smith,A.R.(2016).Ourtheories
areonlyasgoodasourmethods.Global
JournalofCommunityPsychology
Practice.7(2).pp.1-5.
Berkowitz,B.(2016).Alternativestotheory
development.GlobalJournalof
CommunityPsychologyPractice.7(2).pp.
1-4.
Brannon,L.,Feist,J.,&Updegraff,J.
(2013).Healthpsychology:An
introductiontobehaviorandhealth.
Boston,MA:CengageLearning.
Christens,B.D.(2016).Pragmatism,praxis,
andpredictivetheory.GlobalJournalof
CommunityPsychologyPractice.7(2).pp.
1-6.
Gillespie,D.(1979).Tobeornottobop.New
York,NY:Doubleday.
Grove,W.M.(2006).Philosophical
Psychology.(p.14).Retrievedfrom
https://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/gro
ve/psy8004_syllabus_spring20062007.pdf
Haig,B.D.,&Evers,C.W.(2016).Realist
inquiryinsocialscience.Washington,D.C.:
Sage..
Madsen,K.B.(1988).Ahistoryofpsychology
inmetascientificperspective.NewYork,
NY:NewHolland.
Jason,L.A.,Light,J.M.,Stevens,E.B.,&Beers,
K.(2014).Dynamicsocialnetworksin
recoveryhomes.AmericanJournalof
CommunityPsychology,53,324-334.
Jason,L.A.,Stevens,E.,Ram,D.,Miller,S.A.,
Beasley,C.R.,&Gleason,K.(2016).
Theoriesinthefieldofcommunity
psychology.GlobalJournalofCommunity
PsychologyPractice.7(2).pp.1-27.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 8
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Keys,C.B.(2016).Cacophonyismusictoour
minds.GlobalJournalofCommunity
PsychologyPractice.7(2).pp.1-7.
Kuhn,T.S.(1962).Thestructureofscientific
revolutions.Chicago,IL:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Levy,P.(2009).Industrial/organizational
psychology.NewYork,NY:Macmillan.
Lewin,K.(1951).Fieldtheoryinsocialscience:
Selectedtheoreticalpapers.NewYork,NY:
Harper&BrothersPublishers.
Light,J.M.,Jason,L.A.,Stevens,E.B.,Callahan,
S.,&Stone,A.(inpress).Amathematical
frameworkforthecomplexsystem
approachtogroupdynamics:Thecaseof
recoveryhousesocialintegration.Group
Dynamics:Theory,Research&Practice.
Lorion,R.P.(2016).Theoriesincommunity
psychology:Dotheymatterandwhy?
GlobalJournalofCommunityPsychology
Practice.7(2).pp.1-5.
MayaJariego,I.(2016).Ecologicalsettings
andtheoryofcommunityaction:“Thereis
nothing morepracticalthanagood
theory”inCommunityPsychology.Global
JournalofCommunityPsychologyPractice.
7(2).pp.1-6.
Mayo,D.G.(1996).Errorandthegrowthof
experimentalknowledge.Chicago,IL:
UniversityofChicago.
Neal,J.W.,(2016).Phenomenonofinterest,
framework,ortheory?Buildingbetter
explanationsinCommunity
Psychology.GlobalJournalofCommunity
PsychologyPractice.7(2).pp.1-6.
O'Donohue,W.(2013).Clinicalpsychology
andthephilosophyofscience.NewYork,
NY:Springer.
Psillos,S.(2011).OnReichenbach’sargument
forscientificrealism.Synthese,181,23-40.
February 2016
Rhodes,J.E.(2016).Celebratingourevolving,
interdisciplinary,contextually-embedded
field.GlobalJournalofCommunity
PsychologyPractice.7(2).pp.1-4.
Robinson,W.L.,Brown,M.,Beasley,C.,&
Jason,L.A.(2016).Preventionand
promotioninterventions.InM.A.Bond,C.
Keys,&I.Serrano-Garcia(Eds.).
Handbookofcommunitypsychology.
Washington,DC:AmericanPsychological
Association.
Scheffler,I.(1967).Scienceandsubjectivity.
Indianapolis,IN:Bobbs-Merrill.
Schwarzer,R.&Luszczynska,A.(2015).
HealthActionProcessApproach.InM.
Conner,&P.Norman(Eds.),Predicting
healthbehaviours(pp.252-278).3rd
edition.Maidenhead,UK:McGrawHill
OpenUniversityPress.
Snijders,T.A.B.,vandeBunt,G.G.,&Steglich,
C.E.G.(2010).Introductiontostochastic
actor-basedmodelsfornetwork
dynamics.SocialNetworks,32,44-60.
Steg,L.,vandenBerg,A.E.,&DeGroot,J.I.
(Eds.).(2012).Environmentalpsychology:
Anintroduction.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley
&Sons.
Sutton,S.(2008).Howdoesthehealthaction
processapproach(HAPA)bridgethe
intention–behaviorgap?Anexamination
ofthemodel'scausalstructure.Applied
Psychology,57(1),66-74.
Tebes,J.K.(2016).Theories,models,and
scienceinCommunityPsychology.Global
JournalofCommunityPsychologyPractice.
7(2).pp.1-11.
Williams,G.A.(2016).Indefenseofamultiparadigmaticapproachtotheory
developmentinCommunityPsychology.
GlobalJournalofCommunityPsychology
Practice.7(2).pp.1-7.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 9