Theories in the Field of Community Psychology
Leonard A.
Jason
Ed
Stevens
Daphna
Ram
DePaul University
Steven A. Miller
Rosalind Franklin
University of Medicine
and Science
Christopher R.
Beasley
Kristen Gleason
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
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
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 2
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
February 2016
TheoriesintheFieldofCommunityPsychology
Abstract
Inthisarticle,wereviewsomeofthekeyattributesofusefultheoriesandassesswhether
theseattributesarepresentinseveralprominentCommunityPsychologytheories.The
fieldofCommunityPsychologyoftendealswithcomplexsystemsandattemptstocreate
changethroughtheuseofmultiplemechanisms.Ithasprovidedresearchersnewways
of thinking about contextual factors and how participants could be more involved in
research efforts. However, this field has encountered significant challenges in testing
andevaluatingtheoriesthatinvolvesystem-levelenvironmentalchange.Ithasstruggled
toestablishconsensuswhenoperationallydefiningcriteriaandwhencreatingreliable
instruments for measuring theoretical constructs. We conclude that Community
Psychologytheorieshavetendedtofunctionasframeworks,whichindicateimportant
elementstoexamine,butdonotspecifyrelationshipsthatcanbeusedforexplanation
andare,therefore,toobroadtomakethetypesofpredictionscharacteristicofscience.
Because Community Psychology theories have often served as orienting frameworks,
there needs to be more discussion about their usefulness, and whether community
psychologistscandevelopmorerigorousandspecifictheories.Thishasimplicationsfor
formulatingvariouspracticesandfordiscussionsabouthowfutureresearchcanbetter
informtheory.
Theoreticalissuesaboundinmanyareasof
psychology.Meehl(1978,pp.806),oneofthe
morevocaladvocatesoftheimportanceof
theory,hasstated:“mostsocalledtheoriesin
thesoftareasofpsychology(clinical,
counseling,social,personality,community,
andschoolpsychology)arescientifically
unimpressiveandtechnologicallyworthless.”
Whilethisstancereflectsapositivistic
approachtopsychologythatisnot
necessarilyembracedbyallcommunity
psychologists,thechargeisworth
considerationnonetheless(Kloos,Hill,
Thomas,Wandersman,Elias,&Dalton,2012).
Itwouldbeusefulforthefieldtohaveaclear,
sharedunderstandingaroundtheuseofthe
term“theory”andwhenandhowitappliesto
theworkthatwedo.Itisinthisspiritthatwe
exploresomeofthekey“theories”usedby
communitypsychologistsinordertoassess
whetherornottheyfitwithintheconceptof
theoryastraditionallydefinedinscientific
inquiry.Inordertodothiswemustfirsttrace
thedefinitionanduseoftheideaof“theory”
inthesetermsandthenwemustdetermine
whichofthemwithinthefieldofcommunity
psychologymightbefruitfullyanalyzedusing
thisrubric.
DefiningandUsingTheory
inScientificInquiry
AccordingtoKerlinger(1986),“Atheoryisa
setofinterrelatedconstructs(concepts),
definitions,andpropositionsthatpresenta
systematicviewofphenomenabyspecifying
relationsamongvariables,withthepurpose
ofexplainingandpredictingphenomena”(p.
11).Ahallmarkofthescientificprocessisthe
developmentandtestingoftheories,and,
consequently,thosedisciplineswithoutgood
theoreticalfoundationsareoftenseenasless
rigorousorlessvaluabletothelarger
scientificcommunity.Theoriesallowdatato
beorganized,systematized,andinterpreted.
Somewouldarguethatwithouttheoriesitis
hardertoachieveprogresstowardsuseful
accumulatedknowledge.McAdamsandPals
(2007)statethat:"Theoryisattheheartof
science”(p3),andFeynman(1997)believes
thatifacademicsarenotengagingin
theoreticalwork,theircontributionsarebest
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 3
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
categorizedasanengineeringendeavor
ratherthantruescience.
Ofcourse,otherswoulddisagreewith
Feynman’s(1997)assessment.Inthefieldof
medicine,forexample,muchoccursthatis
practicalandcontributestothelarger
missionofbothpatientcareandthe
developmentofnewtherapeuticmethods.In
fact,manymedicaldiscoveriessuchasthe
discoveryofpenicillin,whichbeganthe
moderneraofantibioticdevelopment
(Colebrook,1956),aretheresultof
serendipityratherthanprogrammatic
theory-testedexperiments.However,even
withinthemoreapplieddisciplinessuchas
medicine,thereareimplicittheoretical
models.Forexample,theoreticalmodels
regardingcellfunction,cellgrowth,and
biochemicalchangehaveallowedscientiststo
developinterventionsforanumberof
neurodegenerativediseases(Sheikh,Safia,
Haque,&Mir,2013).Thoughthereare
distinctionsbetweenthosewhopractice
medicineandthosewhoseresearchexplicitly
wieldstheory,manybelievetheoriesapplyto
bothtypesofactivitiesand,more
importantly,arethedrivingforcefor
innovations.Itisevenpossibletoarguethat
inanyresearchorclinicalpractice,thereis
alwaysatheoreticalmodelinoperation.
CriteriaforEvaluatingTheories
Theoriesservethreepurposes—describing,
explaining,andpredictingphenomena(Jiang,
1998).First,theoriesareusedtodescribea
phenomenon.Thesedescriptiveprocesses
arethenusedtoexplainwhythe
phenomenonoccurs,andthisexplanatory
frameworkisthenusedinmakinginferential
predictions.Awell-formulatedtheoryshould
alsobeabletoexplainthephenomenaof
interestandpositunderwhichcircumstances
andconditions(people,settings,andtimes)a
givensetofpropositionsshouldapply.This
providesabetterunderstandingofthe
phenomenonofinterestandallowsfora
morecriticalanalysis.Forexample,Affective
EventsTheory(AET;Weiss&Cropanzano,
February 2016
1996)positsthataffectivebehaviors(e.g.,
citizenshipbehaviorssuchascourtesy,
conscientiousness,andsportsmanship)are
directlyrelatedtoaffectiveexperiences,while
judgment-drivenbehaviors(e.g.,leavinga
setting)areindirectlyrelatedtoaffect
throughtheattitudes(e.g.satisfactionand
commitment)formedbysuchexperiences.
Thisdistinctionisacriticalpartof
understandingtherelationshipbetween
affectiveeventsandbehavior,andthistheory
hasbeenfruitfullyappliedtocommunity
settings(Beasley&Jason,2015).
AccordingtoReichenbach(1938),thereisa
distinctionbetweenthecontextofdiscovery
andthecontextofjustification.Inthecontext
ofdiscovery,peopledescribewhattheyhave
stumbledupon;whereasinthecontextof
justification,theymakepredictionsandthen
testtheseideasinordertoproveordisprove
them.Indeed,theprevalentpracticeof
generatinghypothesesandtheoriesafterthe
datahavebeenanalyzed(knownasHARKing;
HypothesizingAftertheResultsareKnown;
Kerr,1998)hasreceivedquiteabitofcritical
attention.Inthesecircumstancesitis
possiblethatoneisonlyexplaining
phenomenathroughthelensofwhatis
alreadyknown.Feynman(1997)has
describedgoodscienceasaprocessof
“bendingoverbackwardtoshowoneself
wrong.”WithHARKedtheoretical
explanation,thereisanabsenceofsuch
“bendingoverbackwards.”Asanapproachto
inquiry,itleanstowardsaffirmation,riskinga
resultthatsimplyconfirmswhataresearcher
alreadybelievestobetrue.Thisis
reminiscentofMeehl’s(1967)argumentthat
psychologists’relianceonpost-hoc
explanationofwhyphenomenadidordidnot
occurobscuresthefield’sabilitytoassess
whypeoplefunctionastheydo.To
counteractthebiasofHARK,some
researcherssuggestthattheoriesneedtobe:
1)articulated(andperhapshypotheseseven
registeredbeforeresearchisconducted)-this
isakintoNozekandBar-Anan’s(2012)
conceptofOpenScienceand2)testedapriori
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 4
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
sothatonecanseewhetherornotanygiven
theoryactsasavalid“inferenceticket”for
humanphenomena.
Itshouldbenotedthatsomehaveraised
importantconcernsregardingtheclassic
contextofdiscovery/contextofjustification
distinction(e.g.,Hoyningien-Huene,2006),
butevenwhilequestioningthemeritofsuch
anunambiguousbinarydivide,mostwould
stillrecognizetheneedfor“adistinct
normativeperspectivethataimsatthe
evaluationofscientificclaims”HoyningienHuene,2006,p.130).Amajoraimofthis
articleistoattempttoapplysome“normative
perspective”regardingtheuseoftheoryto
workinthefieldofCommunityPsychology
andtogeneratewhatwehopewillbea
productiveconversationaroundsuchaims.
Onesuchnormativecriteriaoftenusedin
scienceisthatgoodtheoriesneedtooffer
clearpredictionsregardingwhatshould
happenwithnewdata,andthesepredictions
shouldbecapableofbeingrigorouslytested
andfalsified(Popper,1968).Accordingto
Borsboom(2013),“Agoodscientifictheory
allowsyoutoinferwhatwouldhappento
thingsincertainsituationswithoutcreating
thesituations…Theoriesshouldbe
interpretedasinferencetickets.”Otherwise,
atheoryistoobroadtomakethetypesof
predictionscharacteristicofscience.In
makingpredictionsaboutnewdata,theories
provideinsightintohowhumanbehavior
worksinsystematicways.Ultimately,
theoriesarepartoftheprocesswhere
observationsbecomeevidencefor
generalizableknowledge,whichcanhave
usefulapplicability.Theoriesalsodealwith
falsifiabilityandutility(Bacharach,1989;
Huber,2008;VandeVen,1989).
Finally,whenusingtheoriesinresearch,
investigatorsneedtoassesstheapplicability
ofatheorywithinavarietyofcontextsin
ordertodescribetheboundaryconditionsin
whichthetheorypredictionsholdordonot
hold.Forexample,underclassicalconditions,
thetheoryofgravitationiscorrect.But,
February 2016
gravitationaltheorydoesnotapplyat
quantumdistancesorextremelyhigh
energies—thatis,thereisnotheoryof
quantumgravity.Gravityappliesverynicely
whenpredictingmotionofobjects,butnot
underallconditions(i.e.,airresistanceofa
droppedobjectmustbeconsidered).While
theboundariesofthetheoryofgravitation
seemquiteobviousinthisexample,
analogousboundariesarenotalwaysasclear
inthetheoriesoftenusedinthefieldof
CommunityPsychology.Considerlearning
theory.Skinner(1971)assertedthat
reinforcementisakeycomponentoflearning
inbothhumansandpigeons.However,when
attentionalcapacityislimited(e.g.,byserious
headinjury,overwhelmingenvironmental
stimuli,intenseemotionalstates),learning
maynotoccurinthesamemanner.Itis
difficulttotrainpigeonstofightadversaries,
astheymaybeevolutionarilyhardwiredfor
flightratherthanfight.
Boundaryconditionsareoneoftheways
theoriescanbeabasisforprogress,andpart
ofsuchadvancementinvolvesdeveloping
betterunderstandingsofwhenandhowa
theorydoesanddoesnotapplytoparticular
settingsandcircumstances.IfBowlby(1969;
1980)hadnotproposedacleartheorythat
allowedforpredictionsandexperimentation,
Ainsworthwouldnothavemadeher
discoveryaboutboundaryconditions.
Bowlby’s(1969;1980)influentialAttachment
Theorywithindevelopmentalpsychology
postulatedthatarelationshipwithastable
consistentcaregiverisimportantfor
emotionaldevelopment.AinsworthandBell
(1970)testedthistheorybyobserving
parent-childinteractions,andnoticedthat
notallchildrenreactedtoseparationfrom
andreunionwiththeirparentsinthesame
manner.Therelationshipbetweenchildren
andtheirparentsplaysasignificantrolein
children’sfeelingsofsecurity.Inother
words,thetheorydidnotapplyuniversally
andboundaryconditionsrelatedtoindividual
differencesexisted.Althoughtheprimary
purposeoftheoryistoexplaincurrent
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 5
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
phenomenaandpredicthowthingsmay
behaveinthefuture,somehaveusedtheory
toexplainandunderstandpastevents.There
areothersetsofcriteriafortheory
assessment,thatarebeyondthescopeofthis
papersuchasimportance,precisionand
clarity,parsimonyandsimplicity,
comprehensiveness,operationality,empirical
validationorverification,fruitfulness,and
practicality(Patterson,1986).
Clearlydefiningtheoryinthismanneris
importantbecauseoften“theory,”“model”
and“framework”areusedinterchangeably;
however,thereareimportantdifferencesin
theseconcepts(SeeFigure1).Aframework
informsresearchersofthetypesofelements
thatareconsideredimportantavenuesof
investigation.Itlargelyperformsthe
descriptivefunctionofatheorywithlimited
explanatoryand/orpredictivequalities.A
well-knownexampleisBronfennbrenner’s
(1979)framework,whichismadeupof
macrosystem,mesosystemandmicrosystem
elements.However,becausetheterms
macrosystem,mesosystem,andmicrosystem
arenotspecific,theframeworkdoesnot
February 2016
makepredictions.Inotherwords,without
furtherrefinement,thisframeworkdoesnot
specifyrelationshipsthatcanbeusedfor
explanationandprediction.Therefore,a
frameworkcouldbedescribedasasetof
orientingprincipleswhich,however,require
morespecificdefinition,operationalization,
andsoon,inordertobeappliedinanygiven
researchorothercircumstance.Forexample,
Bronfenbrenner’s(1979)frameworkcanbe
usedtospecifyandoperationalizethe
propositionthatproximalsystemsarelikely
tohavegreaterimpactonindividualsthan
distalsystemsandinvestigationstargeting
thesedifferentlevelsofimpactcouldbeused
toevaluatethisverypoint.However,asit
standstheframeworkitselfsimplypointsto
multiplelevelsofinfluence.Ifresearchers
lookbackwards,Bronfenbrenner’secological
systemsframeworkdoesseemtodescribe
howsomesocialsystemswork,butitisnot
specificenoughtobetestableinarigorous
sense.Withinoneframework,oftenmultiple
theoriescanbederived,andofteneach
theorymighthaveseveraldifferentmodels
andaccompanyinghypotheses(SeeFigure1).
Figure1.Relationshipamongoneframework,whichmighthaveseveraltheoriesandmodelsNOTE:
Theremaybeoneormorehypothesiswithineachmodel.Inthisfigureforthesakeofsimplicitywe
onlylisttwohypothesespermodel.
Intheinterestsofclarityandconsensusabout
someoftheclassic“theories”whichhave
theuseofthesetermswithinthefieldof
beenmuchbelovedinthefield.Weconsider
CommunityPsychology,weintendtoexplore
thequestionofwhetherthesetheoriesmight
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 6
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
bemoreproductivelyclassifiedandusedas
frameworksbecausetheylacktheabilityto
aidwiththeoperationalizationand
predictioninherenttoadefinitionoftheory
asclassicallyusedinscientificinquiry.
Frameworksarecertainlyimportantand
useful,butthinkingthroughhowweasafield
canmoreexplicitlyfleshoutthese
frameworksintosetsoftestabletheories
wouldgoalongwaytowardmaking
significantprogressinunderstanding
complexsystemsandthecontextsinwhich
peoplelivetheirlives.
CommunityPsychology
Beforeapplyingthisrubrictothemajor
theoriesputforthinthefield,itisimportant
tosituatethephilosophyofscienceoutlined
above(anditscoredefinitionoftheory)
withinthecontextofCommunityPsychology
andpractice.CommunityPsychology
emergedabout50yearsago.Asthefield
evolved,certainrecurringthemesalso
emerged:emphasizingpreventionover
treatment,highlightingcompetenciesover
weaknesses,collaboratingacrossdisciplines,
exploringecologicalunderstandingsofpeople
withintheirenvironment,promoting
diversity,andfocusingoncommunity
buildingasamodeofintervention
(Moritsugu,Vera,Wong,&Duffy,2013).
Theseconceptsfocusedonnewwaysof
thinkingaboutcontextualfactorsandhow
participantscouldbemoreinvolvedin
researchefforts.Theseconceptsalso
concentratedmoreonpublichealthsystems
andpreventiveapproaches(Kloos,et.al.,
2012).Ataninfluentialcommunitymethods
conference,Tolan,Keys,Chertok,andJason
(1990)respondedtoamultitudeofissues
facingthefieldofCommunityPsychology,and
introducedadialogueregardingcriteria
necessarytodefineresearchofmeritaswell
asmethodologicalconsiderationsin
implementingecologically-drivenresearch.
Participantsatthisconferenceappealedfor
thecarefulconstructionandtestingoftheory
incommunityresearch(p.226).Alater
CommunityPsychologymethodsconference
February 2016
exploredthegapinthescientificknowledge
andpracticeofcommunitybasedresearch
methodologiesemphasizingparticipatory
research(Jasonetal.,2004).Theoriesof
contextandactionforsocialchange(Lewin,
1946;Vygotsky,1981)havebeenpartofthe
CommunityPsychologyfieldfromits
inceptionandcontinuetobeutilized[e.g.,
Seidman’s(1988)theoryofsocialregularities
insocialsettings].
CommunityPsychologywasfoundedasa
disciplinethatisintendedtocombinea
scientificorientationwithcollaborativesocial
actioninordertoempowermembersofsome
communityofinterestandtohelpthem
improvetheirlives.Thisorientationresultsin
someimportantdifferencesbetweenthe
“hard”sciencesandCommunityPsychology,
inthatittakesaccountofthefactthat
humansarecognitive,agenticunits,and
cannotbeacteduponasthoughtheywere
inertobjects.Thisimpliesthatsomelevelof
collaborationwillalwaysberequiredto
institutesocialchange.Additionally,this
orientationhasalsosensitizedthefieldtoa
needtolistentosocialactors,ratherthanto
prescribetothem,whichinturnhasledto
manyinsightsregardingwhatlifeislikefrom
thepointofviewofcommunitymembers.
However,thesegoalsmightruntheriskof
subordinatingsomepotentiallyvery
importantaspectsofscientificdevelopment,
includingthedevelopmentoftheories
capableofeffectivelydescribing,predicting,
andexplainingimportantphenomena.
Itispossibletothinkaboutdifferentfieldsof
psychologyashavingdifferentgoals.For
example,developmentalpsychologyaimsto
documentandunderstandthechangesin
humansacrossthelifespan.Thegoalof
CommunityPsychologyhasbeenexpressed
asanattempttounderstandthewaysthat
alteringspecifichumancontexts(and
perhapstherelationshipbetweenpeopleand
theircontexts)alleviateshumansuffering.
Althoughmuchoftheexplanationof
individualdifference“todate”hasfocusedon
genetics/natureandaccumulated
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 7
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
experience/nurture,theremayalsobea
significantamountofvariancethatcanbe
accountedforbyourinteractionswithour
currentenvironment.CommunityPsychology
hasmuchtocontributetothisarea,bothin
termsoftheoriestodescribetheimpactsof
contextandenvironment,aswellasreliable
andvalidmeasurestocapturethesecomplex
phenomena.
Perspectivism
Thedefinitionoftheorydescribedabove
springslargelyoutofatraditionalWestern
philosophyofscience.Notallcommunity
psychologistssubscribetothiskindoflogical
empiricismastheirguidingphilosophyof
science.Infact,manycommunity
psychologistsfocusontheideathatweneed
toidentifyandunderstandmultiple
perspectivesonreality.Thisinvolves
understandingtheimportanceofmultiple
contextsincludinggender,race,age,sexual
orientation,religion,anddisabilitystatus.
However,iftakentotheextremeof
consideringeachecologicalsettingtobe
uniquewithitsownhistoryandvarying
influences(ascanhappenwithpure
constructivism),theremaybeno
generalizableprinciplesthatcanbeextended
acrosssettings(Trickett,Watts,&Birman,
1994).Anassumptionofscienceisthatthere
aresomeregularitiesintheworld,andthey
areoftenstationaryenoughtohave
generalizedmeaning.Iftherandomnessof
diversitydominateshumanandcommunity
behavior,thentheorieshavelowvalue.
However,asTebes(2005)pointsout,
understandinghowandwhypeople’s
perspectivesdifferandthesituationsin
whichperspectivesariseallowsaplacefor
scienceandforconceptualizingtheoretically
inconductingscientificresearch.
Ourdefinitionoftheoryislargelycouchedin
languageofempiricism,butthereare
importantreasonstoconsiderotherscientific
perspectives,especiallygivenCommunity
Psychology’sgoalofexaminingcontext.For
Tebes(2012),perspectivismsuggeststhatall
February 2016
knowledgeisdependentontheobserver’s
pointofview,isimperfectandincomplete,
andissubjecttosocialandcultural
influences.Accordingtoperspectivism,our
knowledgeemergesoutofactiveengagement
withtheworld.Therefore,ifthereare
multipleperspectiveson“reality”,itmaybe
besttosimultaneouslyexaminemultiple
theories.Someethnomethodologistsand
phenomenologistsinthefieldofsociology
wouldevengoasfarastosuggestthereisno
“scienceofhumanbehavior”(Ashley&
Orenstein,2005).Indeed,asociological
approachtocritiquingknowledgecanhelpus
understandpower,oppression,andaction
(Berger,1977;Merton,1968;Strauss,1997),
recognizingthatknowledgeisboth
incompleteanddependentoncultureand
context.Consequently,thisraisesthe
considerationthateveryculture,which
logicallyimplieseverysocialsystem(even
dyadsorindividualsastheirconstituent
parts),isunique.
Perspectivismleadstonotonlymetatheoreticalconsiderationsofpower,
knowledge,anddiversityofperspective,but
alsomethodologicalones1.Forexample,
neighborhoodsarenotstaticanddochange
overtime.Heller(2014)hasindicatedthat
thevariousimpedimentsthatcommunities
confront,suchasinadequateresourcesor
insufficienttechnicalknowledge,mayrequire
differentstrategies.Tebes(2012)hasargued
forapragmaticpointofview:thatevidence
for“trueness”maybebestobtainedfroma
diversesetofmixedmethods,onethat
includesthevoicesofmultipleperspectives
andformsofdata.Thechallengeforthis
researchistoconsolidate,aggregate,and
makesenseofthemultiplestrandsof
evidenceordata,anditmaybestbeachieved
atsomemeta-levelofanalysis.Inasense,we
maybeabletorecognizedifferent
perspectiveson“reality”,andyetstilldistill
commonelements,orpredictable
relationshipsamongseeminglydisparate
elements.Whilethisviewacknowledgesthat
oftenmultipleandcompetingdefinitionsof
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 8
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
humanphenomena(alongwithinherent
issuesofpowerandprivilege)areatplay,it
alsoproposesthatattimesitispossibleto
describecommonelementsthatholdtrue
acrossdiversecontexts.Itiswiththe
intentionofinstigatingacohesivedistillation
ofthesecommonelementswithinthefieldof
CommunityPsychologythatweofferthe
followingdiscussionrelatedtothemajor
theoriesinthefield.
CentralTheories
Thequestionofwhichtheoriesarecentralto
thefieldofCommunityPsychologycontinues
tobeasubjectofdebate.Theauthorsofthis
articlerecentlypostedthefollowingnoticeon
theSocietyforCommunityResearchand
Action’slistserv:“AgroupofusatDePaul
Universityarethinkingaboutwhichtheories
arecentraltothefieldofCommunity
Psychology.Wewouldbeinterestedin
learningwhetheryouusetheoriesexplicitly,
andifyoudousetheoriesexplicitly,what
theoriesyouuse,anddoyouborrowthem
fromotherdisciplinesoraretheyfromthe
fieldofCommunityPsychology.”The
following32theorieswerementioned:
1.
Kelly’s(2006)EcologicalTheory;
2.
Rappaport’s(1981)Empowerment
Theory;
3.
Sarason’s(1974)PsychologicalSense
ofCommunityTheory;
4.
Bronfennbrenner’s(1979)Ecological
SystemsTheory;
5.
HawkinsandCatalano’s(1992)Social
Developmentmodel;
6.
DohrenwendandDohrenwend’s
(1981)Stress&Copingmodel;
7.
Ryan’s(1976)BlamingtheVictim;
8.
Martin-Baro’s(1994)Liberation
PsychologyTheory;
9.
Rogers’s(1959)Helping
Relationships(empathy,acceptance/warmth,
andgenuineness);
10.
IrvingYalom’s(2005)Conceptionof
TherapeuticFactorsinGroupTherapy
(instillationofhope,universality,etc.);
February 2016
11.
Habermas’s(1984,1987)Theoryof
CommunicativeAction;
12.
Marcuse’s(1969)CriticalSocial
Theory;
13.
O’Donnell,Tharp,&Wilson’s(1993)
ActivityTheory;
14.
FlayandSchure’s(2012)Integrative
Theory;
15.
Rawls’s(1971)SocialJusticeTheory;
16.
Sen's(2009)SocialJusticeTheory;
17.
Foucault's(1991)Conceptionof
Power;
18.
Bordieus's(1986)TheoryofFormsof
Capital;
19.
Foster-Fishman,Nowell,andWang’s
(2007)System-TheoreticalWork;
20.
FishbeinandAjzen’s(1975)Theoryof
ReasonedAction;
21.
Ajzen’s(1991)TheoryofPlanned
Behavior;
22.
Rutter’s(1985)ResilienceTheory;
23.
WeissandCropanzano’s(1996)
AffectiveEventsTheory;
24.
Barker’s(1968)BehaviorSetting
Theory;
25.
French,Rogers,andCobb’s(1974)
Person-EnvironmentFitTheoryofStress;
26.
BiglanandSloaneWilson’s(2015)
BehavioralSystemsScience;
27.
NowellandBoyd’s(2010)Senseof
CommunityResponsibilityConceptand
Theory;
28.
VonBertallanfy’s(1969)Open
SystemsTheory;
29.
Moos’s(1986)SocialContext
Perspective;
30.
Argyris's(1993)Organizational
LearningTheory;
31.
SrivastvalandCooperrider's(1986)
AppreciativeInquiryTheory;
32.
Spreitzeretal.’s(2005)Socially
EmbeddedModelofThriving.
Weweresomewhatsurprisedbyboththe
varietyoftheoriesbeingusedaswellasthe
facttherewaslittleagreementforleadingor
centraltheories.BecauseCommunity
Psychologyisconcernedwithmanypersonal
andsocialissues,perhapsthevarietyaboveis
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 9
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
moreofareflectionofthisbreadthofconcern
thanasymptomoftheoreticalfragmentation
orlackofconsensus.Ifoneweretotracethe
originsofthesetheories,forexample,itis
possiblethatmanyhavesimilarroots,or
addressdifferentlevelsofabstraction(e.g.,
individualsvs.socialinstitutions).Inother
words,itisprobablynotasthoughthisfield
has32differentexplanationsforessentially
thesamephenomena.Amongtheresponses,a
fewsuggestedthatthefieldwouldbenefit
frommorerigorouslydefinedtheories,
framingrigorintermsofclarityof
application,clarityofexposition,andlackof
ambiguityinpredictions.Thisarticleisa
responsetothatchallenge,attemptingto
analyzehowsuccessfullywehavemetthis
standardofrigor.Wedonothavethespace
inthisarticletorevieweachoftheabove
theories,sowillwewillfocusourevaluation
onseveralofthemoreprominenttheoriesin
thedevelopmentofthefieldofCommunity
Psychology,focusingontheirtestabilityand
predictability.
TheoriesinCommunityPsychology
Inthisarticle,weareattemptingtoassess
theoriesintermsofwhattheycurrentlydo
andwhattheyareintendingtodo.Whilewe
doacknowledgethattherearemanyinthe
fieldwhowouldarguethatemploying
theoriesheuristicallyisusefulandthatthe
“usefulness”ofatheoryoftendependson
whatyouareactuallytryingtodowithit,we
willsuggestthatthefollowingtheoriescould
bemoreusefulifprogresswasmadeintheir
abilitytopredictanddescribephenomena
moreexplicitly.Therefore,belowwereview
someofthekeyattributesofthreeprominent
CommunityPsychologytheories,andwe
explorewhetherthesetheydescribe,explain,
andpredictphenomena.
EcologicalTheory
OverviewofEcologicalTheory
February 2016
Kelly’s(1968)EcologicalTheoryfocuseson
howpeoplebecomeeffectiveandadaptivein
differentsocialenvironments.Kellyproposed
fourecologicalprinciplesthatserveasa
theoryforexaminingsettingsandbehavior:
interdependence,cyclingofresources,
adaptation,andsuccession.Interdependence
impliesthatchangeinonecomponentofan
ecosystemcanchangerelationshipsamong
othercomponentsofthesystem.The
principleofcyclingofresourcesprovidesa
guideforunderstandinghowecosystems
createandusenewresources.Thisallowsus
todeterminehowresourcescanbeused
moreeffectivelyinasettingandhow
additionalresourcescanbegenerated.
Adaptationisdefinedbytheway
environmentsrestrict,constrain,andshape
peoples’behavior,andhow,inturn,the
environmentsbegintoalsochangeduetothe
individualswithinthem.Thisconceptimplies
thatbehaviorthatisadaptiveinonesetting
maynotbeadaptiveinothers.Italsopoints
ustowardtryingtoassesswhoparticipatesin
definingadaptiverolesandingenerating
normativeacceptanceandsupportforawide
rangeofadaptivebehaviors.Finally,the
principleofsuccessionsuggestscommunities
areinaconstantprocessofchange,andover
time,thedemandforadaptivecapacities
changes.
Thistheoryhasbeenusedbycommunity
psychologiststounderstandbehaviorin
interactionwithsocialandculturalcontexts.
Psychologistsinotherfieldshave
independentlyexploredanumberofthese
domains.Forexample,socialpsychological
theoriesoftenaddressissuesofcontext[e.g.,
Latané’s(1981)SocialImpactTheory].
However,inLatané’ssocialpsychological
theory,thereal-worldinterdependenceor
dynamicsthatareintegralfeaturesofKelly’s
theoryarenotpresent.ForKelly,adaptation
andsuccessionarebiological,dynamic
processesthatcharacterizesocialsettings
andhumaninteractions.
Oneexampleofcommunityresearchusing
Kelly’stheoryistheworkofQuattrochi-Tubin
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 10
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
andJason(1980),evaluatingthesuccessofa
stimuluscontrolprocedureinincreasing
interactionsamongelderlyparticipantsina
loungeareaofanursinghome.The
interventioninvolvedprovidingtheresidents
coffeeandcookiestoseewhetherthese
resourceswouldchangetheirbehaviors.
Severalresidentsmentionedthattheywould
holdahalf-filledcup,eventhoughtheywere
notinterestedindrinkingit,justtobepartof
thegroup.Inadditiontoincreasing
interactions,theinterventioneffectively
eliminatedtelevisionwatching,thusshowing
responsegeneralization.Theintervention
alsodemonstratedinterdependence--
changesthatoccurredinoneaspectofthe
settinginfluencedotheraspects.Forexample,
severalgroupmembersbeganservingcoffee
tothosewhowerephysicallyunabletoserve
themselves.Onewomanevenapproachedthe
nursingstationtoinformtheaidesofwhata
goodtimeshewashavingservingthemen.It
appearsthattherefreshmentsrepresentedan
environmentalsupportfacilitatingsocial
activitiesandaltruisticbehaviors.ForKelly,
theecologicalnotionofinterdependence
helpshighlightdynamicprocessesthatoften
occurinoursocialandcommunity
interventions,asintheexampleofhowsmall
changestothesettingenabledseveral
participantsinthenursinghometobecome
partofthegroup.
EvaluationofEcologicalTheory
AspectsofKelly’sEcologicalTheoryhavebeen
evaluatedusingseveraldiverseapproaches.
Kingry-WestergaardandKelly(1990)have
suggestedthatmultipleapproachesare
neededtounderstandcomplexqualitiesof
relationshipsandsystems.Onekeymethod
forgettingatthesecomplexqualitiesinvolves
thecollaborativerelationshipbetweenthe
researcherandtheparticipants.Thismeans
thatconceptsandhypothesesaredeveloped,
tested,andevaluatedbyboththeresearcher
andtheparticipants.Additionally,
Wandersman,Chavis,andStuckly(1983)
suggestthatthecharacteristicsofthe
individualcitizensthemselves(e.g.,
February 2016
motivationtoparticipate,availableresources,
leveloftraining,andorganizational
characteristics)influencethelevelofcitizen
involvement.Citizenparticipationin
communityinterventionshaspotentialfor
sensitizing,prioritizing,andsustaining
researchefforts.Iftheresearchlendsitselfto
citizeninvolvement,thendeterminingthe
bestlevelandtypeofinvolvementiscritical.
AccordingtoKelly(2006),peopleinteract
withtheirenvironmentthroughthefour
specificprinciplesdescribedabove.These
ecologicalprinciplesfocusondifferent
aspectsofthesocialcontextandbehavior,
andtheyalsooverlapandcomplementone
another.Inaclassicstudyexaminingyouth
whotransitionedintoanewschool,Kelly
(1979)foundthatboyswithhighpreference
forexploratorybehaviorshadmorepositive
scoresonadaptationmeasuresinbothoftwo
schools,butthatthe“fluid”schoolwhere
morestudentsenteredandleftinayear,
predictablyfacilitatedmoreexploratory
behavior.Thefindingsofthestudy
strengthenedhisviewofEcologicalTheoryby
showingthatperson-environment
interactionswereimportant,thatadaption
andchangewereeverpresent,andrates
variedbyindividualdifferencesandsetting.
Ontheotherhand,becauseKelly’stheory
providesforalargenumberofhypothesesor
models,itissomewhatnon-specific,andthus
consistentwithpotentiallyquiteafewrather
differentmodels.Parsimonyconsiderations
mightsuggestsimplerandmoredirect
theoriesofperson-settinginteractionsthan
thisbroadgeneralizedconstructofsocial
ecology.Itraisesthefollowingquestion:If
thistheorycangenerateavarietyofquite
disparatehypotheses,inwhatsensecanany
investigationinformthevalidityofthetheory
itself?
Forthesereasons,weproposethatKelly’s
(1968)EcologicalTheoryismoreusefully
conceptualizedasaframeworkthanasa
theory.Though,itisperhapsmorespecific
thanBronfennbrenner’s(1979)framework
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 11
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
withrespecttorelationshipsbetween
constituentelementsanditsabilityto
generatehypotheses.Forexample,Kelly
(2006)hasarguedforthepowerofsocial
support,statingthat“organizational
resourceswereessentialformywell-being”
(p.11).Indeed,theroleofsupportascausal
andcriticalforgoodfunctioningisaspecific
predictionmadefromKelly’swork.
Frameworksarecertainlyusefultools,
especiallyiftheycanbeusedtodevelop
severalinterrelatedmodels.Amodelisaset
ofhypothesesaboutareal-lifesituation(See
Figure1);andKelly’s“theory”(or
framework)couldbeproductivelydeveloped
intooneormoretestablemodels,each
containingmanyhypotheses(Jason,1992).
Forexample,onecouldtestthehypothesis
thatactivelyparticipatinginmorecommunity
eventsleadstohigherratingsofsocial
support.Inturn,greatersocialsupport(i.e.,
interdependence)couldrelatetogreater
well-being.Assumingthatsocialsupportand
well-beingcanbeobservedinasuitably
designedstudy,then,thesetwohypotheses
createatestablemodelbasedonKelly’s
theory.
Theprimaryroleoftheoryinempirical
inquiryistosuggestimportantresearch
questionsbyhypothesizingmechanismsand
makingpredictions.Itispossiblemany
communitypsychologistshaveusedKelly’s
EcologicalTheorytoexplainwhattheyhave
stumbledupon(i.e.,Reichenbach’s(1938)
contextofdiscovery).Withthisideology,
theremaybeapreferencetoexplainafterthe-factphenomena,andthedangerhereis
thattheinvestigatorwhohasstumbledupon
aconceptinpracticemightoverstateitasa
theory.Fartoooften,thetheoryisnomore
thananafterthought,asmentionedabove,
usedtoexplainwhatthefindingsarerather
thanpredictingwhattheyshouldbeapriori.
Therefore,weproposeherethatKelly’s
ecologicalconceptsarebettercharacterized
andusedasaframeworkwhichcanbe
employedasaguidetodeveloptestable
models.
February 2016
PsychologicalSenseofCommunityTheory
OverviewofPsychologicalSenseof
CommunityTheory
Anotherinfluentialcommunitypsychology
theoristwasSarason(1974),whoseinsight
wasthataPsychologicalSenseofCommunity
wasafeelingthatemergedasafunctionof
theinteractionoftheindividualandthe
context.Hedescribedthistheoryasfollows:
“theperceptionofsimilaritytoothers,an
acknowledgedinterdependencewithothers,
awillingnesstomaintainthis
interdependencebygivingtoordoingfor
otherswhatoneexpectsfromthem,the
feelingoneispartofalargerdependableand
stablestructure”(p.157).Thisdefinition
incorporatesmanykeyaspectsofCommunity
Psychology,suchasthenotionthatan
individualexistswithinalargernetworkand
structureandthattheseindividualsare
interdependent.Inparticular,senseof
communitytheoryclaimsthatifpeoplefeel
thattheyexistwithinalargerinterdependent
network,theyaremorewillingtocommitto
andevenmakepersonalsacrificesforthat
group.Whenthistheorywasinitially
proposed,therewasconsiderableenthusiasm
fortheideaanditwassoonconsideredoneof
thefoundationalconstructsofthedeveloping
fieldofCommunityPsychology.
Whilesimilarconstructshavebeenproposed
inotherdisciplines,noneisaperfectmatch
forsenseofcommunity.Senseofcommunity
isfeelings-basedratherthanbasedona
rationalevaluationofthefulfillmentofa
person’sneedsoraspirations.Senseof
communityismorethanthe“cohesion”that
istypicallymeasuredin
industrial/organizationalsettings(e.g.,
Kozlowski&Ilgen,2006),ascohesionisoften
marketbased,anditdoesnotneedemotional
connectiontoaccomplishtasks.Senseof
communityisalsomorethanthepositive
groupfeelings,suchas“morale,”thatare
typicallystudiedbypositivepsychologists
(Peterson,Park,&Sweeney,2008).In
addition,espritdecorpsmeasuredby
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 12
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
militarypsychologists(e.g.,Manning,1991)
focusesmoreonpositiveaffectinmilitary
activities.
Intheory,theconstructsenseofcommunity
ambitiouslyattemptstodescribeboth
individual-levelfeelingsofconnectednessand
theimplicationsthesefeelingshaveon
behaviorsandsettingsaswellasthe
reciprocalwaysinwhichdifferentsettings
canfacilitatefeelingsofconnectednessand
relatedbehaviors.Butsenseofcommunityis
anaggregateconstructandnotanindividual
measure,andtheessentialfeatureishowthe
membersofthelargergrouporentityaffect
theindividualfeelingsofcommunity.Likea
flockofgeesethatfliesasaunifiedentity,the
collectiveassessmentiscritical.Inessence,
ratherthanassessingsenseofcommunityby
oneperson’sobservation,itisessentialfor
theretobearepresentativesampleof
individualstotapthisconstruct.Onecould
measure“one”person’ssenseofbelongingto
agroup,butthissingleobservationwouldnot
capturethegroup’ssenseofcommunity.
Inpractice,attemptstooperationalizethese
conceptsovertheyearshavebeenmetwith
varioustheoreticalandmethodological
challenges.Forexample,senseofcommunity
hasbeenvariouslyconceptualizedfrom
place-based(locational)communities(i.e.,
neighborhoods)tomoregeneralizedand
abstractcommunities(relational
communities)(Bess,Fisher,Sonn,&Bishop,
2002;Bishop,Chertok,&Jason,1997),thus
makingthescopeofmeasurementmore
difficultandlessgeneralizable.Thisvariety
canintroducealevelofimprecisionifthese
differentialapplicationsoftheconceptare
notexplicitlyoutlinedandinvestigated.
Furthermore,becausetheconceptofsenseof
communityattemptstocaptureinteractions
betweendifferentlevelsofinfluence(e.g.,
individualfeelings,relationalbehaviors,and
settingfeatures),designingmeasuresthat
capturethismultidimensionalityhasalso
beendifficult(Jason,Stevens,Ram,2015).In
oneattempttofurtherspecifythis
complexity,Brodsky,Loomis,andMarx
February 2016
(2002)haverecommendthatresearchers
begintoconceptualizeandmeasuremultiple
sensesofcommunity.Thatis,themultiple
possiblenestedsettingsthatmayeachpose
interrelated,butoftendifferent,sensesof
community.Theypostulatedthatthesenses
ofcommunityexperiencedinmultiple
settingslikelyinteractwitheachotherand
thatunderstandingamorecomplete
constellationofsenseofcommunitywould
helptobetterunderstandsenseof
communityinanyoneparticularsetting.For
example,"whenaresearcherpredetermines
thePSOC[psychologicalsenseofcommunity]
targetcommunity,itisunclearifthat
communityhasthesamesalienceand/or
importancetoallresearchparticipants.Thus
theaggregatecommunitymeasuremaybe
moremeaningfulasanindicatorof
individuals'commitmenttothecommunity,
butbelessusefulasanindicatorofindividual
outcome"(Brodskyetal.,2002,p.332).
Despitethesechallenges,community
researchershavetheorizedandtesteda
numberofscalesaimedatoperationalizing
“senseofcommunity.”Perhaps,mostnotably,
McMillanandChavis(1986)proposedthis
constructtohavefourdimensions:
membership,fulfillmentofneeds,shared
emotionalconnection,andinfluence.
MoreoverPeterson,Speer,andMcMillan
(2008)developedtheBriefSenseof
CommunityScale,an8-itemscaletomeasure
thesefactors.Inaddition,Bishop,Chertok,
andJason(1997)proposedan
operationalizationofsenseofcommunity
usingtheconstructsofmission,connections,
andreciprocalresponsibility.The
correspondingmeasurementscale,the
PerceivedSenseofCommunityScale,was
intendedtobelesstiedtogeographiclocation
(i.e.,neighborhood)thanpreviousscales.
Mostrecently,Jason,StevensandRam(2015)
havesuggestedthatsenseofcommunity
offersauniqueinformationwhenexamining
anindividual’sexperienceaspartofasystem.
Theyconceptualizedthisexperienceasa
resultofanindividualbeingpartofthree
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 13
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
ecologicallevels.ThelargestlevelisEntity,
theunituponwhichthecommunityis
formulated(e.g.,neighborhood,school,or
organization).Inordertotapintothis
domain,theyincorporateditemsthatreferto
characteristicsofthegroup,suchascommon
goals,purpose,andobjectives.Thenextlevel,,
Membershipreferstotherelationships
betweenthemembersofthegroup(e.g.,
neighborsonablock,studentswithina
school).Finally,atthethirdandnarrowest
level,or“theindividual,”isSelf,which
assessesthemeaningfulness,commitment,
andemotionalconnectionexperiencedby
members.Improvingonpriorattemptsto
capturesenseofcommunity,this
representationoftheconstructhasthe
advantageofprovidingadetailedperspective
ontheinteractiverelationshipbetweenan
individual’sownexperiencewithinagroup
andcharacteristicsofthatgroup,attempting
tocapturehowtheseaspectsrelatetohisor
herwell-being.Inasense,thisdefinition
capturesSarason’squotereferredtoabove,
definingpsychologicalsenseofcommunityas
comprisingmultiplelevels--astablestructure
(Entity),interdependencewithothers
(Members),andawillingnesstomaintain
interdependence(Self).
EvaluationofPsychologicalSenseof
CommunityTheory
Capturingtheessenceofsenseofcommunity
invalid,reliable,andgeneralizabletermshas
beenchallengingforcommunity
psychologists(e.g.,Nowell&Boyd,2010).
Whilehundredsofresearchstudieshave
utilizedsenseofcommunityasaconstruct,
peoplecontinuetodevelopsenseof
communityinstrumentsbecauseofa
dissatisfactionwithcurrentinstruments.In
otherwords,measurementissuesinclude
conceptualcomplexity,suchastheempirical
overlapbetweenthe3or4identifiedfactors.
Brodskyetal.’s(2002)observationthatsense
ofcommunityoperatesatmultiplelevels
explainswhymanymeasurementeffortshave
encounteredconceptualproblemswhen
attemptingtocaptureagroupconceptusing
February 2016
individuallevelassessments.Forexample,
McMillanandChavis’(1986)4-factor
structurehasnotgenerallybeenconfirmed
byfactoranalyticstudies(Chipuer&Pretty,
1999;Stevens,Jason,&Ferrari,2011).When
ithasbeenconfirmed,suchasinPeterson,
Speer,andMcMillan’s(2008)BriefSenseof
CommunityScale,thecorrelationoffactorsis
sohighthatitsuseattheindividualfactor
levelisproblematic.Othershavetriedto
reformulatetheMcMillanandChavismodel,
suchaswhenLongandPerkins(2003)
retainedthreefactorsconsistingofsocial
connections,mutualconcerns,and
communityvalues.Thelatentmeasurement
model,however,didnottranslateinto
acceptablereliabilitiesatthesubscalelevel.
Scalesmeasuringotherformationsofsenseof
community,suchasthePerceivedSenseof
CommunityScale(Bishop,Chertok,&Jason,
1997),whileperhapshavingmorereliability,
alsohaveprovedtobeproblematicinvarious
ways(Stevens,Jasonetal.,2012),asfactor
analysesrevealedthatnegativelyworded
itemsloadedtogether.
However,therehasbeenrecentprogresson
aninstrumentthatisdesignedtocapturethe
ecologicalstructureofsenseofcommunityat
threelayers(Jason,Stevens&Ram,2015).
Usingthesethreelevels,theSelf,the
interactionswithothers(Membership),and
theorganization(Entity),abrief9-item
questionnairehasbeendevelopedwithgood
psychometricpropertiestoassesssenseof
community.Thepreliminaryevidence
suggeststhateachdomainisanecessarybut
notsufficientcomponentofsenseof
community.Forexample,apersonmight
experienceastrongsenseofEntity,butnotof
MembershiporSelf,andinsuchasituation,he
orshemaynothaveastrongsenseof
community.Jason,StevensandRam(2015)
havefoundempiricalsupportforsucha
conceptualizationofsenseofcommunitywith
goodmeasurementmodelfitandinternal
reliabilities,andthefindingshavenowbeen
replicatedwithacommunitysampleandused
topredicttworecoveryhomephenomenaof
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 14
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
houseoperationsandmembertrust(Jason,
Stevens,&Light,inpress).
Understandingtheboundaryconditionsor
limitsofthesenseofcommunityconceptis
alsoofcriticalimportance.Furtherprogress
isneededinoutliningthecontextsinwhich
thisconceptapplies,suchaswhether
differentculturalcommunitiesmaytendto
variouslyweightdifferentsettingsasmoreor
lessimportantintermsofsenseof
community(i.e.,presentdifferent
constellationsofmultiplesenseof
community)andwhatkindsofimplications
thathasforthegeneralizableapplicationof
relatedmeasures.Forexample,gangsor
violentextremistgroupsmighthavesimilar
senseofcommunityscorestothoseengaged
inmorepositiveactivitiessuchasteam
sports.Inaddition,senseofcommunityisa
statesoitchangesdynamicallyovertime.Itis
alsopossiblethatdifferentlevelsofsenseof
communitymightnotbepredictiveoflarge
behavioraldifferences(Davidson&Cotter,
1993).Evenifthisisthecase,however,the
conceptmaystillbepredictiveofimportant
unusualbehaviorinspecificcontexts.Asan
example,duringonesummerinChicago
whentherewasanextremeheatwave,sense
ofcommunitymayhavebeenwhatmotivated
neighborstocheckonsingleelderlypeople,
savingmanylives.However,froma
theoreticalpointofview,havingamore
narrowandfocuseddescriptionincreasesthe
likelihoodthatonecandirectlytestthe
theory,andthatthiscanimprovethecreation
ofthemeasurementandthetest.If
addressedinfutureresearchefforts,better
understandingtheboundaryconditionsand
magnitudeofeffectofthesenseofcommunity
conceptcouldaidinitsusewithinthefieldas
apredictiveandexplanatoryconcept.This
would,ofcourse,improveitsstandingasa
clearlydefinedandrigorousscientifictheory
capableofcapturingindividual-context
interactionsinusefullyreplicableterms.
Inthepriorsection,weconcludedthatKelly’s
theorymightbestbedescribedasa
framework.Itispossiblethat,giventhe
February 2016
consistentpastattemptsatandtherecent
progressinoperationalizingtheconstruct,
thesenseofcommunityconceptmay,infact,
meetthecriteriafortheoryasdefinedinthis
article.However,weproposethatby
continuingtopursuevalidandreliable
measuresoftheconstructandbybetter
definingitsboundaryconditions,senseof
communitycanbewieldedmoreeffectively
andmorerigorouslyasatheoryintermsof
satisfyingminimumstandardsofprediction
andcontrol.
Empowerment
OverviewofEmpowermentTheory
Fromtheverybeginning,Rappaport(1987)
statedthatatheoryofempowermentshould
beabletooutlinethelimitsoftheconstruct
anddescribetherangeofsituationsinwhich
itisgeneralizable.Furthermore,Rappaport
(1987)indicated,
CommunityPsychologyasafieldof
studyhasreachedatimeinits
developmentwhentheorymustbe
proposed,tested,andmodified.
Withouttheory,afieldcannotlong
surviveasascientificenterprise.
Withouttheorytheapplicationsofa
fieldmustbecomeincreasinglycutoff
fromthesharpedgeofscientific
critique.(p.122)
HereweevaluatehowwellRappaport’s
theoryasitisusedtodayhasintegratedthese
ideals.
In1981,Rappaportwroteaninfluential
articleonEmpowermentTheorytitled:“In
praiseofparadox:Asocialpolicyof
empowermentoverprevention.”Rappaport
(1981)proposedatheoryofempowerment
thatoutlined4characteristics:1)Individuals
canbeviewedascompleteentitieshaving
bothneedsandrights;2)attentionmustbe
paidtoparadox;3)therearebothdivergent
anddialecticalsolutionstosocialproblems;
and4)thereisasymbolicsenseofurgencyin
understandingandsolvingsocialproblems.In
otherwords,peopleshouldnotbeviewed
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 15
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
unidimensionally.Inaddition,asthereare
myriadsolutionsandopportunitiesfor
solvingcommunityproblems,itisnotoptimal
toimplementsingle-barreledsolutionsto
mostsocialissues.
Believing“theoryisessentialtothe
maturationofanyfieldofseriousscientific
study,”Rappaport(1987)latermadeacase
forempowerment,anddefineditinthe
followingway:
Ihavesuggestedthatempowerment
isaprocess,amechanismbywhich
people,organizations,and
communitiesgainmasteryovertheir
affairs.Consequently,empowerment
willlookdifferentinitsmanifest
contentfordifferentpeople,
organizations,andsettings…I
suggestedthataconcernwith
empowermentleadsustolookfor
solutionstoproblemsinlivingina
diversityoflocalsettings,ratherthan
inthecentralizedsinglesolutionsofa
monolithic"helping"structure,where
helpisconsideredtobeascarce
commodity…(pp.122).
Inhis1987article,Rappaportexpandedupon
hisearliernotionsbyprovidinganoutlineof
“11assumptions,presuppositions,and
hypothesesbuiltintoatheoryof
empowerment”(Rappaport,1987,p.139).
Theseincluded:empowermentisamultilevelconstruct;theradiatingimpactofone
levelofanalysisontheothersisassumedto
beimportant;thehistoricalcontexthasan
importantinfluenceontheoutcomesofa
program;theculturalcontextmatters;
longitudinalresearchisdesirableand
perhapsnecessary;empowermentisfurther
aworldviewtheory(e.g.,participantsare
consideredcollaborators,andthechoiceof
languageisimportant);theconditionsof
participationinasettingpredicts
empowerment;anorganizationwithan
empowermentideologywillbebetterat
findinganddevelopingresourcesthanone
withahelper-helpeeorientation;locally
February 2016
developedsolutionsaremoreempowering
thangeneralsolutions;sizesofsettings
matter;and,onceadopted,empowerment
expandsresources.AccordingtoRappaport,
theseassumptionssuggestthatthegoalor
dependentvariableofourcommunity
interventionsshouldinvolveempowerment.
EvaluationofEmpowermentTheory
Wewillfirstconsiderhowwell
empowermentdescribesaphenomenonof
interest,aswellastheimportantquestionof
whetheradefinitionofempowermentis
generallyagreedupon.Aninitialquestionis
howRappaport’sdefinitionisdifferentfrom
agency,autonomy,volition,perceivedcontrol,
andtheself-efficacyofsomeaction.
Rappaport(1987)doesclearlyputagreat
emphasisontheinteractionoftheindividual
andenvironment,yetdoesnotclearlyspecify
howtomeasurethisconstruct.Asaresult,
empowermentcouldbeviewedastheability
toinfluenceandorganizepeople(Christens,
Peterson,&Speer,2011),orasaprocess,asa
psychologicalstate,orastheactofgiving
someonepowerorbeinggivenpower,or
evenallofthesearguablydistinct
phenomena.Ifthefundamentaldescriptionis
variableandsubjecttodifferent
interpretations,thisposeschallengesnotonly
intermsofmeasurementbutalsointermsof
predictionandcontroldescription,whichare
theminimalstandardsofatheory.
Furthermore,byspanningecologicallevels,
theremightbeadditionalproblemswiththe
consistencyofmeaning.Forexample,an
empoweredorganizationmightbevery
differentthananempoweredindividual.One
companymightbeempowered,inthatitis
veryefficientandhasagrowingmarketshare
andpower,andyettheexperienceof
empowermentmaybeverydifferentforan
individualwithinthatorganization.That
individualmightfeelunempoweredifforced
tomeetunrealisticefficiencyexpectations,all
inaneffortfortheoverallorganizationtobe
perceivedasempowered(particularlyamong
themanagement).Inotherwords,thecore
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 16
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
definitionofempowermentmaybedifferent
attheorganizationalandindividuallevel,and
ifgeneralmasteryandcontroloverone’s
futureisthecoreconstruct,thenthismight
bemanifestedverydifferentlyatdifferent
organizationallevels.Thisissupportedby
Zimmerman(1995)whoassertedthat
“empowermentmaybeanopen-ended
constructthatisnoteasilyreducedtoa
universalsetofoperationalrulesand
definitions…themeasureswedevelopforone
studymaynotbeappropriateforanother”
(pp.583).Itcouldevenbearguedthat
empowermentreallyonlymakessensefor
individuals,asitisultimatelyaperceptionof
efficacy,andorganizationsdon’thave
perceptions.Therefore,ifaconstruct’s
definitionisambiguous,operationalizations
ofitarelikelytobeaswell.
Althoughthefoundationworkfor
empowermentoccurredover30yearsago,
thereremainsaneedforaclearand
consistentdefinition.Forexample,Cattaneo
andGoodman(2015)usedempowermentas
thebasisforunderstandingdomesticviolence
practice,butalsoconcludedthereisaneed
foraconsensusontheprecisedefinition.
Hunter,Jason,andKeys(2013)focusedon
measuringempowermentwithinaspecific
populationinaspecificcontext,andfound
thattheconstructissogeneralastoimpede
accuratemeasurement.Becauseithasbeen
measureddifferentlybydifferent
investigators,eachwiththeirownpurposes,
thecriterialackconsistency,hinderingitsuse
asatheoryforthefield.Ifnumerous
researcherseachhavetheirown
interpretationsofthetheoryanddevelop
theirownmeasures,thenaccumulationof
evidencefor(oragainst)thetheoryisnot
possible.Beingstuckatadescriptivephase
withoutaconsensusdefinitionthuslimitsthe
scopeandimpactofthetheoreticalconstruct
becausenewevidencecannoteasilybe
interpretedassupportingorrefutingthe
theory.
Furthermore,theempowermentconcept
doesnotgivespecificdirectionsor
February 2016
predictionsregardingmechanisms.Thereis
nosystematicwayofpredictingorevaluating
differencesandlikelihoodsofoutcomes(e.g.,
Borsboom,2013).Therefore,froma
theoreticalpointofview,Rappaporthas
neitherdescribedthebasicmechanismsat
work,normadepredictionsabouthowthe
contextmightalterthis.Although,more
recently,researchers(e.g.,Christens,
Peterson,&Speer,2011)haveattemptedto
makespecificpredictionsregarding
EmpowermentTheory,theremaybesome
debateaboutwhethertheirpredictivetests
flowdirectlyfromthattheory.Thismightalso
applytoPeterson’s(2014)workon
organizationalempowerment(Peterson&
Zimmerman,2004)andmeasurement
frameworksforempowermentatmultiple
levelsofanalysis(Peterson,2014).The
theoreticalfoundationofempowerment
wouldbesturdierandultimatelytestableif
empowermenttheoristscameupwitha
predictionregardinghowempowerment
mightworkinagivensituationratherthan
sayingthereisnosinglewayofempowering
entities.Thiswouldallowfornewhypotheses
andnewpredictions.Insummary,because
theempowermentconceptlacksaconsensus
definition/consistentformulationanddoes
notatpresenthavepredictivecapabilities,it
doesnotmeetthequalificationsoftheoryas
outlinedhereandmightbetterbereferredto
asaframework.
Discussion
Whenusingtheoriesinthewayoutlinedin
thisarticle,differenttasksneedtooccurat
differentstagesofthetheorydevelopment
process,andtheobjectiveorgoalofthe
researchgenerallyshapesthenatureofthe
investigation.Intheexploratorystageof
scientificresearchandtheorydevelopment,
qualitativeandmixedmethodsareoftenused
inordertoobtainrichdescriptionsofthe
phenomenonofinterest.Attheexploratory
stage,itiscriticaltodevelopmeasuresthat
correlatewitheachother,andthiscanbe
donewithcross-sectionaldesigns;hopefully
thesemeasuresvaryenoughtobeableto
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 17
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
February 2016
capturechangeovertime.Itisnotessentialto
makeacausalargumentatthispoint,butan
investigatormaymakepredictionsfrom
thesedata.Duringthenextstepoftheory
buildingandtesting,theinvestigatormay
begintomakespecificpredictions.Thismay
bedonethroughlongitudinaldata,inorderto
determineatemporalsequenceofcauseand
effectorthroughexperimentaldata,to
determinesituationalcauseandeffect.The
theoryisthenputintopractice,andits
generalizabilityisevaluated.Thisprocessis
iterative,andovertime,boundaryconditions
emergeascertainpropositionsarefoundto
belimitedtospecificpeople,settingsand
times.
developingaconsensusdefinitionand
measurementframework.Inaddition,itis
possiblethatmanytheorieswithinthefieldof
CommunityPsychologyarebetter
characterizedasframeworks,whichdonot
specifyrelationshipsthatcanbeusedfor
explanation.Thereneedstobemore
discussionaboutwhetherframeworksare
usefulandhowcommunitypsychologistscan
progressfromframeworkstomorerigorous
theory.Finally,thesomewhatideological
natureofCommunityPsychology(putting
greatvalueonparticipatoryresearch,
attemptingdirectactiontoimprovepeople’s
lives,etc.)canresultinlesswillingnessto
considertheoryinthetermsdescribedhere.
CommunityPsychologyhasoftenbeen
characterizedbyexploratoryresearch,which
hasanimportantroleindescribinga
phenomenonandgettingaconceptualhandle
onpotentiallyimportantcausalmechanisms.
However,furtherdevelopmentisrequiredfor
makingpredictionsregardingthephenomena
ofinterest.Thegoalofexploratoryresearchis
tolearnaboutaphenomenonwithout
necessarilyimposingastructureonit.
Informationfromthisexploratorystagelater
informsapreliminarystructureforthis
phenomenon,makingitpossibletocomeup
withamodelthatdescribeshowpeopledo
thingsinaparticularway.Thisstageof
exploratoryresearchisakintoReichenbach’s
(1938)contextofdiscoverywherethe
justificationorfalsificationoftheoriesisnot
yetcentral.Itisnotuntiloneengagesinthe
contextofjustificationthatatheorybeginsto
form.Inordertodevelopagoodtheory,ata
startingpoint,onemustalsobeconcerned
withthedevelopmentofagreeduponand
psychometricallysoundmeasuresandthe
utilizationofrigorousmethodstotestemploy
thosemeasure.Thisstageoftheory
developmenthasoccurredlessofteninthe
fieldofCommunityPsychology.
CommunityPsychologyisprobablyoneofthe
morecomplexfieldsinthesocialsciences
becauseitembracesmultiplelevelsof
influenceratherthansimpleindividual
differences.Thiscomplexityhasbeena
challengefortheorydevelopmentandtesting.
Communitypsychologistsgenerate,
accumulate,consolidate,andleverage
knowledgebasedonevidencewiththegoalof
improvingpeoples’lives,especiallythose
whosuffermostfromsystem-levelforces.If
somecommunitypsychologistsfeelthat
knowledgeisuniqueandnotgeneralizable,
thentheseinvestigators’functionmaybe
relegatedtosimplyoneofreporting.Weas
authorsproposethatsignificantprogress
towardthisgoalofhelpingtoimprovelives
couldoccurwiththemorerigorous
developmentandtestingoftheories.
Furthermore,weproposethatexperimental
designsarethemosteffectivetoolinthis
processoftheorytesting(e.g.,tripleblind,
randomizedassignment,unbiased,
longitudinaldesigns).Weakerformsoftheory
testing(e.g.quasi-experimental—nonrandomassignmentwithcontrols)lack
strongevidentiarypower.Evenweaker
designs(e.g.,observational/cross-sectional)
aremoreproperlythoughtofasgenerally
exploratoryandifmodeledapriori,atbest
weakevidenceforconfirming/disconfirming
ahypothesis.Ifmodeledex-post,these
Therehavebeenmanychallengestothe
developmentandtestingoftheoriesforthe
field,andtheconceptsreviewedaboveall
encounteredsignificantobstaclesto
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 18
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
designsarereallydescriptiveexercises
speculatingapathforfutureinvestigation.
Theincorporationofcontextinatheoretically
meaningfulwayisanothernecessary
ingredientforafullymaturefieldof
CommunityPsychology.Wearenotalways
evenawareofthepotenteffectsofan
individual’scontext,andthereisevidence
thattheenvironmentcanhaveprofound
effectsonthingsthathavebeenconsidered
geneticallyderived.Forexample,Ravelliet
al.(1998)investigatedprenatalexposureto
faminewhenduringthelatterpartofWorld
WarII,theGermansseverelyreducedfood
supplytotheNetherlands.Prenatalexposure
tofamine,especiallyduringlategestation,
waslinkedtodecreasedglucosetolerance
whentheinfantsbecameadults.They
concludedthatpoornutritioninuterocan
leadtopermanentchangesininsulin-glucose
metabolism,andtheenvironmentaleffectof
famineonglucosetolerancewasespecially
importantinpeoplewholaterbecameobese.
Theimportanceofcontextisoftennot
recognizedorintegratedincommunity
psychologystudies,asdataisfrequently
obtainedatthelevelofindividuals.This
suggeststhatthefieldisstillatanembryonic
stageofdevelopment.However,emerging
workusingtheoryrelatedtodynamic
systemsdoespresentanopportunityto
systematicallyinvestigatesettings.Before
CommunityPsychologyreallybegantoform
cohesiveideasaroundcontextualimpacts,
sociologistswereattemptingtodevelop
theoriesandmethodsthatcapturesocial
contexts.TheirSociology-of-Knowledge
theoriesareillustrativeandhavebeenused
tounderstandpeople’sperceptionsofreality,
socialchange,andtheroleofsocial
institutions(Berger,1977;Merton,1968;
Strauss,1997).Borrowingfromthese
theoriesmighthelpuscaptureasystems
pointofview.Forexample,wholenetwork
theoreticalapproachescanprovidea
relationalmapofsomesocialecosystemsin
caseswheresystem-widedyadic
relationshipsmaybeexhaustivelymeasured.
February 2016
Dynamictheoriesofwholesocialnetworks
focusonthemutualinterdependence
betweenrelationshipsandbehaviorchange
overtime,providingawaytoconceptualize
andempiricallydescribetwo-way
transactionaldynamics(Jason,Light,&
Callahan,2016).
Yet,indefiningandoperationalizing
constructs,weoftenfindsomeofthemost
seriouschallengestothefieldofCommunity
Psychology,asillustratedwithourdiscussion
ofempowerment.Suchissuesoccurinother
fieldsaswell,ascriterionvariance(i.e.,
differencesintheformalinclusionand
exclusioncriteriausedclassifydatainto
categories)accountsforthelargestsourceof
diagnosticunreliability(Jason,&Choi,2008).
Criterionvarianceismostlikelytooccur
whenoperationallyexplicitcriteriadonot
existforcategories(Spitzer,Endicott,&
Robins,1978),orwhentherearevarying
criteriaforaphenomenontobedefined.
Whencategorieslackreliability,theupper
boundaryonthevalidity(i.e.,usefulness)ofa
categoryisinherentlylimited.Therefore,
criterionvarianceoccursbecause
operationallyexplicitcriteriahavenotexisted
ortherehasnotbeenaconsensusamong
investigatorsforthecriteria.Fortheory
development,thereisafundamentalneedfor
theprovisionofoperationallyexplicitcriteria
andreliableinstrumentstomeasurethe
phenomena.
ThisisevidentinHeller’s(2014)argument
aboutcommunities;thereisoftenalackofa
cleartheoreticalstatementabouthow
communitiesshouldbeconceptualized.Part
oftheproblemstemsfromthehighlyvariable
definitionof“neighborhoods,”whichcan
rangefromablockinaresidential
communitytoanon-linenetwork.Inaddition,
thereareanumberofmediatorsof
neighborhoodeffects,includingthequalityof
resources(e.g.,libraries,schools,parks),level
ofcommunityintegration(e.g.,membershow
knoweachother),andthequalityofsocial
tiesandinteractions.Thesedebatesabout
meaninganddefinitionareunderpinnedby
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 19
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
importantdifferencesinperspective,andit
maynotalwaysbepossibletomergeoralign
thesedifferences.Howcommunitiesand
relatedconstructs“should”bedefinedisa
deeplyculturalquestion,withmanydifferent
answers.Inspecifyingauniversallyapplied
definitionforthesephenomena,researchers
runtheriskofprivilegingonegroup’s
definitionoverothers.Itthenbecomesan
issueofwhohasthepowertodefinethese
constructs.Oneofthestrengthsof
communitypsychologyisthatwedoask
thosequestionsofscience(i.e.,who’s
definitionareyouusing?Isthisapplicationof
a“generalized”definitionoppressiveinthatit
privilegestheideasofthedominantgroup?).
Thismaybesomeofthelegitimatereasoning
behindareluctancetodefinesometheories
inthewayswehaveoutlined.Werecognize
thattheseareimportantissuestoconsider
andoffertheaboveobservationsasone
perspectivethatwehopewillspurfurther
thoughtfuldiscussionaroundhowwecan
engageintheoreticalrigorwhile
acknowledgingthepotentialimplicationsthis
hasintermsofpitfallsrelatedtopowerand
privilege.
Themethodologythatisusedmaynaturally
flowfromtheory,butthisisonlypossiblein
thecontextofclearlyarticulatedtheory;itis
necessarytosuccinctlyarticulatethe
measurementofaconstructbeforeatheory
canbeadvanced,refined,orarguedagainst.
Inthefieldofpersonalitypsychology,we
haveseentheevolutionofthemeasurement
ofthe“BigFive”overthe20thcenturyandthe
appealofthismodelhasbeenlargelydueto
developmentofmeasures;currently,there
arefulltheories(e.g.,WholeTraitTheory,
Fleeson&Jayawickreme,2015)thatare
emergingthatwouldnothavebeenpossible
withoutthemeasurementworkofthe20th
century.Thelackofsuchdevelopmentisa
primarycriticismoftheempowerment
literature,inthatthemeasurementofthe
constructsarestillill-definedandunderdeveloped.
February 2016
Thereareseverallimitationsinthisarticle.
Forexample,whereasothers’effortsidentify
issuesrelatedtoaphilosophyofscienceand
relateddefinitionsoftheorywereempirical
andconceptual(Faust&Meehl,1992),our
effortswithinthisarticleweretoidentity
theorieswithinthefieldofCommunity
Psychologyaswellastoexaminehowwell
theyallowustomorefullyunderstand
individualbehaviorbytakingintoaccountthe
contextwithinwhichthepersonlives.In
addition,inthisarticle,wehavenotbeenable
toexaminealltherelevanttheorieswithin
thefieldofCommunityPsychology.
Conclusions
ThefieldofCommunityPsychologyfocuses
oninterestingquestionsandtriesto
understandthem,withtheimplicithopethat
astheserelativelyspecifictopicsbecome
betterunderstood,thattheywillstartto
coalesceintolargerstructures.Itislikely
thatmanytopicsinCommunityPsychology
willnevercoalescearoundonetheory,
becausetheyare,indeed,complexsystems
comprisingmultiplemechanismsofchange.
Forinstance,medicineasaclinicalpracticeis
basedaroundbiology,genetics,behavioral
science,organizationaltheory,etc.When
engineersdesignairplanes,theyuseresults
fromfluiddynamics,electronics,computer
systems,materialsscience,human
psychology,etc.Itmightbeagoodideatobe
opentothispossibilityinCommunity
Psychology--thatatitsheartitisanareaof
studythatbringstogetheravarietyoffactors
(andtheories)affectinghumanbehavior.
Astartingpointfortheorydevelopmentin
CommunityPsychologymaystillneedtobeat
thedescriptivelevel,wherespecificationis
aboutaparticularpopulationinaparticular
context,employingvalidatedmeasuresfor
thephenomenaofinterest.Thefieldof
CommunityPsychologywillbenefitfrom
investigatorsusingsimilarmeasuresto
assessparticulartheories,aswellasthe
developmentofsimplerandmoredirect
theoriesofperson-settingsimilarities.This
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 20
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
consistencyandparsimonywillhelpthefield
developandtesttheoriesallowingfor
predictionandexplanation.
Therehasbeenareluctancetoattemptthe
developmentofmorerigorousandpredictive
theory,inpartbecauseitisnotseenasa
majorgoal,comparedtotakingaction.
However,thereisnoobviousreasonwhy
soundtheorycannotbedevelopedthat
accomplishestheempowermentand
participatorygoalsofCommunityPsychology,
butdoessoinawaythatisscientifically
rigorous.This,however,wouldrequire
CommunityPsychologytoevolveina
differentdirection,oneinwhichtheentire
collaborativeenterprisebetweencommunity
psychologistsandcommunitiesisconsidered
tobetheobjectofstudy,withthesuccess,or
lackthereof,ofanintendedchangeasthe
ultimateoutcomeofinterest.
Forexample,wedobelievethatthereis
considerablepotentialforexploringthe
influenceofcontextualfactorsonhuman
phenomenathatincorporatehowthird-order
changeoccursandhowitimpacts
communities.Third-orderchangeisan
essentialshiftinthesocialfabric,wherebya
communitychangescustomaryassumptions,
worldviews,causeandeffectrelationships,
February 2016
andpractices(Bartunek&Moch,1987).
Communitiesinwhichthird-orderchange
occurshavedevelopedacultureofcontinual
questioning,constantlyidentifyingproblems
andsocialprecipitantstoproblems,
implementingsolutions,andengagingin
ongoingprocessandoutcomeevaluationsfor
thesesolutions.Third-orderinterventions
alsohavethepotentialtocreateunexpected
positivechanges,assettingsdevelopnew
waysofviewingproblemsandfunctions
(Robinson,Brown,Beasley,&Jason,2015).
Whilesuchchangemaybeaidedbyor
facilitateempowerment,third-orderchange
isdistinctinthatitemphasizesafundamental
ongoingmonitoringandchangeratherthan
emphasizingautonomyandself-direction.
Thereisaneedfortheoriestocapturethese
typesofphenomena,andasystemstheory
perspectivethatincludesalltheseelements
maybeapromisingapproach.Inaddition,the
goalforCommunityPsychologytheories
shouldideallyspecifywhatspecificaspectsof
contextinfluencewhatspecificaspectsof
individuals.Furthermore,possiblespecific
mechanismsbywhichthisoccursshouldbe
articulatedtoserveanexplanatoryfunction
toguidethedevelopmentofmeaningand
evidentiaryargumentsforcausality.
Notes
1Twofeaturesofsomerecentliteratureinphilosophyofscienceisespeciallyrelevant.First,the
possibilityofreliabletestingofscientifictheories(ofwhateverlevelofgenerality)dependsonthe
availabilityofasuitablevocabularyofnaturalkinds:avocabularyfordescribingthekinds,
relations,magnitudes,etc.thatarecausallyimportantfactorsintherelevantphenomena.This
meansthattheoreticalandempiricalworkinsortingoutorientingframeworksisinfactabsolutely
centraltoscientificmethodsingeneral,notjustincommunitypsychology.Moreover,therelevant
causalfactorsmayoftenturnouttointeractwithoneanotherincomplicatedways,therebycausing
difficultyforresearchers,theorists,andscientistsingeneral(seeBoyd2010;Oyama2000;Wilson
etal2009).Theissuescommunitypsychologistsfacemaybetypicalinthesciencesingeneral,in
otherwordstheyarenotpeculiartocommunitypsychology.Second,thepluralismofcompeting
approachesthatseemstodescribethescientificstatusofcommunitypsychologyisalso
commonplaceinscience.Infact,itisalmostcertainlyessentialinmostcasesinwhichscientists
sortoutconceptualandmethodologicalissues(seeChang,2004,2012).
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 21
References
Ainsworth,M.D.S.,&Bell,S.M.(1970).
Attachment,exploration,andseparation:
Illustratedbythebehaviorofone-yearoldsinastrangesituation.Child
development,49-67.
Ajzen,I.(1991).Thetheoryofplanned
behavior.OrganizationalBehaviorand
HumanDecisionProcesses,50,179-211.
Argyris,C.(1993).Knowledgeforaction:A
guidetoovercomingbarriersto
organizationalchange.Jossey-BassInc.,
Publishers,SanFrancisco,CA.
AshleyD.,&Orenstein,D.M.(2005).
Sociologicaltheory:Classicalstatements
(6thed.).Boston,MA:PearsonEducation.
Barker,R.G.(1968).Ecologicalpsychology:
Conceptsandmethodsforstudyingthe
environmentofhumanbehavior.Stanford,
CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Bartunek,J.M.,&Moch,M.K.(1987).Firstorder,second-order,andthird-order
changeandorganizationdevelopment
interventions:Acognitiveapproach.The
JournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,
23(4),483–500.doi:
10.1177/002188638702300404
Bacharach,S.B.(1989).Organizational
theories:Somecriteriaforevaluation.The
AcademyofManagementReview,14(4),
496-515.doi:
10.5465/AMR.1989.4308374
Beasley,C.R.,&Jason,L.A.(2015).
Engagement&disengagementinmutualhelpaddictionrecoveryhousing:Atestof
affectiveeventstheory.AmericanJournal
ofCommunityPsychology,55,347-358.
Berger,P.(1977).Facinguptomodernity.
NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.
Bess,K.D.,Fisher,A.T.,Sonn,C.C.,&Bishop,
B.J.(2002).Psychologicalsenseof
community:Theory,research,and
application.InA.T.Fisher,C.C.Sonn,&B.
J.Bishop(Eds.),Psychologicalsenseof
community:Research,applications,and
implications(pp.3–22).NewYork,NY:
KluwerAcademic/Plenum.
Biglan,A.,&SloaneWilson,D.(2015).The
nurtureeffect:Howthescienceofhuman
behaviorcanimproveourlivesandour
world.Oakland,CA:NewHarbinger.
Bishop,P.D.,Chertok,F.,&Jason,L.A.(1997).
Measuringsenseofcommunity:Beyond
localboundaries.JournalofPrimary
Prevention,18(2),193-212.
Borsboom,D.(2013).Theoreticalamnesia.
Website:Opensciencecollaboration.
Availableat:
http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/201
3/11/20/theoretical-amnesia/
Boyd,R.(2010).Realism,naturalkindsand
philosophicalmethods.InH.Beebee&N.
Sabbarton-Leary(Eds.).Thesemantics
andmetaphysicsofnaturalkinds.New
York,NY:Rutledge.
Bourdieu,P.(1986).Theformsofcapital.InJ.
Richardson(Ed.)Handbookoftheoryand
researchforthesociologyofeducation(pp.
241-258).NewYork,NY,Greenwood.
Bowlby,J.(1980).Attachmentandloss(Vol.
3).NewYork,NY:Basicbooks.
Brodsky,A.E.,Loomis,C.,&Marx,C.M.
(2002).Expandingtheconceptualization
ofPSOC.InA.T.Fisher,C.C.Sonn,&B.J.
Bishop(Eds.),Psychologicalsenseof
community:Research,applications,and
implications(pp.319–335).NewYork,
NY:KluwerAcademic/Plenum.
Bronfenbrenner,U.(1979).Theecologyof
humandevelopment:Experimentsby
natureanddesign.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Cattaneo,L.B.&Goodman,L.A.(2015).What
isempowermentanyway?Amodelfor
domesticviolencepractice,research,and
evaluation.PsychologyofViolence,5,8494.
Chang,H.(2004).Inventingtemperature.
NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.
Chang,H.(2012).IswaterH2O?Evidence,
realismandpluralism.NewYork,NY:
Springer
Chipuer,H.M.,&Pretty,G.M.H.(1999).A
reviewofthesenseofcommunityindex:
Currentuses,factorstructure,reliability,
andfurtherdevelopment.Journalof
CommunityPsychology,27(6),643-658.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Christens,B.D.,Peterson,N.A.,&Speer,P.W.
(2011).Communityparticipationand
psychologicalempowerment:Testing
reciprocalcausalityusingacross-lagged
paneldesignandlatentconstructs.Health
Education&Behavior,38,339-347.
Colebrook,L.(1956).AlexanderFleming
1881-1955.Biographicalmemoirsof
fellowsoftheRoyalSociety,2,117–126.
Davidson,W.B.,&Cotter,P.R.(1993).
Psychologicalsenseofcommunityand
supportforpublicschooltaxes.American
JournalofCommunityPsychology,21,5966.
Dohrenwend,B.S.,&Dohrenwend,B.P.
(Eds.).(1981).Stressfullifeeventsand
theircontexts.NewYork:NealeWatson
AcademicPublications.
Faust,D.,&Meehl,P.E.(1992).Using
scientificmethodstoresolvequestionsin
thehistoryandphilosophyofscience:
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:Anintroductionto
theoryandresearch.Reading,MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Flay,B.R.&Schure,M.(2012).Thetheoryof
TriadicInfluence.InWagenaar,A.C.&
Burris,S.C.(Eds.).Publichealthlaw
research:Theoryandmethods.San
Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
Fleeson,W.,&Jayawickreme,E.(2015).
Wholetraittheory.JournalofResearchin
Personality,56,82-92.
Foster-Fishman,P.G.,Nowell,B.,&Wang,H.
(2007).Puttingthesystembackinto
systemschange:aframeworkfor
understandingandchanging
organizationalandcommunitysystems.
AmericanJournalofCommunity
Psychology,39,197–215.
Foucault,M.(1991).Disciplineandpunish:
Thebirthofaprison.London,Penguin.
February 2016
French,J.R.P.,Jr.,Rodgers,W.L.,&Cobb,S.
(1974).Adjustmentaspersonenvironmentfit.InG.Coelho,D.Hamburg,
&J.Adams(Eds.).Copingandadaptation
(pp.316-333).NewYork,NY:BasicBooks
Habermas,J.(1984,1987).TheTheoryof
CommunicativeAction.Vols.1and
2.Boston,MA:Beacon.
Hawkins,J.D.,Catalano,R.F.,&Associates.
(1992).Communitiesthatcare:Actionfor
drugabuseprevention.SanFrancisco,CA:
Jossey-Bass,Inc.
Heller,K.(2014).Communityand
organizationalmediatorsofsocialchange:
Atheoreticalinquiry.InT.P.Gullotta&M.
Bloom(Eds.)Encyclopediaofprimary
preventionandhealthpromotion(2nd
edition),pp.294-302.NewYork,NY:
Springer.
Hoyningien-Huene,P.(2006).Contextof
discoveryversuscontextofjustification
andThomasKuhn.InJ.Schickore&F.
Steinle(Eds.).Revisitingdiscoveryand
justification,(pp.119–131).Netherlands:
Springer.Availableat:
http://cfcul.fc.ul.pt/Seminarios/hoyninge
nhuene_Discovery%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.p
df
Huber,F.(2008).Assessingtheories,Bayes
style.Synthese,161(1),89-118.doi:
10.1007/s11229-006-9141-x
Hunter,B.A.,Jason,L.A.&Keys,C.B.(2013).
Factorsofempowermentforwomenin
recoveryfromsubstanceuse.American
JournalofCommunityPsychology,51,91102.PMCID:PMC3893098
Jason,L.A.(1992).Eco-transactional
behavioralresearch.TheJournalof
PrimaryPrevention,13,37-72.
Jason,L.A.&Choi,M.(2008).Dimensionsand
assessmentoffatigue.InY.Yatanabe,B.
Evengard,B.H.Natelson,L.A.Jason,&H.
Kuratsune(2008).Fatiguesciencefor
humanhealth.(pp1-16).Tokyo:Springer.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 23
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Jason,L.A.,Light,J.,&Callahan,S.(2016).
Dynamicsocialnetworks.InL.A.Jason&
D.S.Glenwick(Eds.).Handbookof
methodologicalapproachestocommunitybasedresearch:Qualitative,quantitative,
andmixedmethods.NewYork,NY:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Jason,L.A.,Keys,C.B.,Suarez-Balcazar,Y.,
Taylor,R.R.,Davis,M.,Durlak,J.,Isenberg,
D.(Eds.)(2004).Participatorycommunity
research:Theoriesandmethodsinaction.
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation:
Washington,D.C.
Jason,L.A.,Stevens,E.,&Light,J.M.(inpress).
Therelationshipofsenseofcommunity
andtrusttohope.JournalofCommunity
Psychology.
Jason,L.A.,Stevens,E.,&Ram,D.(2015).
Developmentofathree-factor
psychologicalsenseofcommunityscale.
JournalofCommunityPsychology,43,973985.
Jiang,C.(1998).Whysometheoriesfailto
describe,explain,andpredict:
Reconstructingthefuture.TheSocial
ScienceJournal,35,645-656.
doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(98)90033-7
Kelly,J.G.(1968).Towardanecological
conceptionofpreventiveinterventions.In
J.W.CarterJr.(Ed.).Research
contributionsfrompsychologyto
communitymentalhealth(pp.76-100).
NewYork,NY:BehavioralPublications.
Kelly,J.G.(1979).Adolescentboysinhigh
school:Apsychologicalstudyofcopingand
adaptation.Hillsdale,N.J:L.Erlbaum
Associates.
Kelly,J.(2006).Beingecological.Anexpedition
intocommunitypsychology.NewYork,NY:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Kerlinger,F.N.(1986).Foundationsof
behavioralresearch.FortWorth,TX:Holt,
RinehartandWinston.
Kerr,N.L.(1998).HARKing:Hypothesizing
aftertheresultsareknown.Personality
andSocialPsychologyBulletin,2,196-217.
February 2016
Kingry-Westergaard,C.,&Kelly,J.G.(1990).A
contextualistepistemologyforecological
research.InP.Tolan,C.Keys,F.Chertok,
&L.A.Jason(Eds.)Researching
communitypsychology.Issuesoftheory
andmethods.(pp.23-31).Washington,DC:
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Kloos,B.,Hill,J.,Thomas,E.,Wandersman,A.,
Elias,M.J.,&Dalton,J.H.(2012).
Communitypsychology:Linking
individualsandcommunities.(Third
Edition).(pp.360-363)Stamford,CT:
Wadsworth.
Kozlowski,S.W.,&Ilgen,D.R.(2006).
Enhancingtheeffectivenessofwork
groupsandteams.PsychologicalSciencein
thePublicInterest,7(3),77-124.
Latané,B.(1981).Thepsychologyofsocial
impact.AmericanPsychologist,36,343356.
Lewin,K.(1946).Actionresearchand
minorityproblems.JournalofSocial
Issues,2,34–46.
Long,D.A.,&Perkins,D.D.(2003).
Confirmatoryfactoranalysisofthesense
ofcommunityindexanddevelopmentofa
briefSCI.JournalofCommunity
Psychology,31(3),279-296.
Marcuse,H.(1969).Anessayon
liberation.Boston:Beacon.
Manning,F.J.(1991).Morale,cohesion,and
espritdecorps.InR.Gal&A.D.
Mangeladorff(Eds.).Handbookof
militarypsychology(pp.453-470),West
Sussex,UK:JohnWiley.
Martín-Baró,I.(1994).Writingsfora
liberationpsychology.InA.Aron&S.
Corne(Eds.),Cambridge,MA:Harvard
UniversityPress.
McAdams,D.P.,&Pals,J.L.(2007).Theroleof
theoryinpersonalityresearch.InR.
W.Robbins,R.C.Fraley,&R.C.Krueger
(Eds.).Handbookofresearchmethodsin
personalitypsychology.NewYork,NY:The
GuilfordPress.
McMillan,D.W.,&Chavis,D.M.(1986).Sense
ofcommunity:Adefinitionand
theory.Journalofcommunity
psychology,14,6-23.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 24
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Meehl,P.E.(1967).Theory-testingin
psychologyandphysics:Amethodological
paradox.PhilosophyofScience,34,103115.
Meehl,P.E.(1978).Theoreticalrisksand
tabularasterisks.JournalofConsulting
andClinicalPsychology,46,806-814.
Merton,R.K.(1968).Socialtheoryandsocial
structure.NewYork,NY:FreePress.
Moos,R.H.(1986).Thehumancontext:
Environmentaldeterminantsofbehavior.
Malabar,Florida:KriegerPublishing
Company.
Moritsugu,J.,Vera,E.G.,Wong,F.W.,&Duffy,
K.G.(2013).Communitypsychology.(5th
Edition).UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey:
Pearson.
Nowell,B.&Boyd,N.(2010).Viewing
communityasresponsibilityaswellas
resource:Deconstructingthetheoretical
rootsofpsychologicalsenseof
community.JournalofCommunity
Psychology,38,828-841.
Nozek,B.,&Bar-Anan,Y.(2012).Scientific
utopia:I.Openingscientific
communication.PsychologicalInquiry,23,
217-243.
O’Donnell,R.G.Tharp,&Wilson,K.(1993).
Activitysettingsastheunitofanalysis:A
theoreticalbasisforcommunity
interventionanddevelopment.American
JournalofCommunityPsychology,21,501520.
Oyama,S.(2000).Evolution’seye.London.
DukeUniversityPress.
Patterson,C.H.(1986).Theoriesofcounseling
andpsychotherapy.Philadelphia:Harper
&Row.
Peterson,N.A.,Speer,P.W.,&McMillan,D.W.
(2008).ValidationofaBriefSenseof
CommunityScale:Confirmationofthe
principaltheoryofsenseofcommunity.
JournalofCommunityPsychology,36(1),
61-73.
Peterson,C.,Park,N.&Sweeney,P.J.(2008).
Groupwell-being:Moralefromapositive
psychologyperspective.Applied
Psychology,57,19–36.
February 2016
Peterson,N.A.(2014).Empowermenttheory:
Clarifyingthenatureofhigher-order
multidimensionalconstructs.American
JournalofCommunityPsychology,53,96108.doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9624-0
Peterson,N.A.,&Zimmerman,M.A.(2004).
Beyondtheindividual:Towarda
nomologicalnetworkoforganizational
empowerment.AmericanJournal
ofCommunityPsychology,34,129-145.
doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040151.77047.
58
Popper,K.R.(1968).Thelogicofscientific
discovery.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.
Quattrochi-Tubin,S.,&Jason,L.A.(1980).
Enhancingsocialinteractionsandactivity
amongtheelderlythroughstimulus
control.JournalofAppliedBehavior
Analysis,13,159-163.
Rappaport,J.(1981).Inpraiseofparadox:A
socialpolicyofempowermentover
prevention.AmericanJournalof
CommunityPsychology,9,1-25.
Rappaport,J.(1985).Thepowerof
empowermentlanguage.SocialPolicy,16,
15-21.
Rappaport,J.(1987).Termsof
empowerment/exemplarsofprevention:
towardatheoryforcommunity
psychology.AmericanJournalof
CommunityPsychology,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).Glucosetolerancein
adultsafterprenatalexposuretofamine.
Lancet,351,173-77.
Reichenbach,H.(1938).Experienceand
prediction:Ananalysisofthefoundations
andthestructureofknowledge.Chicago,
Il:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Robinson,W.L.,Brown,M.,Beasley,C.,&
Jason,L.A.(2015).Preventionand
promotioninterventions.InM.A.Bond,C.
Keys,&I.Serrano-Garcia(Eds.).
Handbookofcommunitypsychology.
Washington,DC:AmericanPsychological
Association.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 25
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Rogers,C.R.(1959).Atheoryoftherapy,
personality,andinterpersonal
relationshipsasdevelopedintheclientcenteredframework.InS.Koch(Series
Ed.)&S.Koch(Vol.Ed.),Psychology:A
studyofascience(Vol.3,pp.184-256).
NewYork,NY:McGrawHill.
Rutter,M.(1985).Resilienceinthefaceof
adversity.Protectivefactorsand
resistancetopsychiatricdisorder.British
JournalofPsychiatry,147,598-611.
Ryan,W.(1976).Blamingthevictim.New
York,NY:Vintage.
Sarason,S.B.(1974).Thepsychologicalsense
ofcommunity;prospectsforacommunity
psychology.SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.
Sen,A.(2009).Theideaofjustice.Cambridge,
MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Seidman,E.(1988).Backtothefuture,
CommunityPsychology:Unfoldinga
theoryofsocialintervention.American
JournalofCommunityPsychology,16,324.
Sheikh,S.,Safia,Haque,E.,&Mir,S.S.(2013).
Neurodegenerativediseases:
Multifactorialconformationaldiseases
andtheirtherapeuticinterventions,
JournalofNeurodegenerativeDiseases,
ArticleID563481,8pages,2013.
doi:10.1155/2013/563481
Spitzer,R.,Endicott,J.,&Robins,E.(1978).
Researchdiagnosticcriteria.Archivesof
GeneralPsychiatry,35,773-782.
Spreitzer,G.,Sutcliffe,K.,Dutton,J.,
Sonenshein,S.&Grant,A.(2005)A
sociallyembeddedmodelofthrivingat
work.OrganizationScience,16,537-549.
Srivastval,S.,&Cooperrider,D.L.(1986).The
emergenceoftheegalitarianorganization.
HumanRelations,39(8),683-724.
Strauss,A.L.(1997).MirrorsandMasks.
RutgersUniversity,NJ:Transaction
Books.
Stevens,E.B.,Jason,L.A.,&Ferrari,J.R.(2011).
MeasurementperformanceoftheSense
ofCommunityIndexinsubstanceabuse
recoverycommunalhousing.Australian
CommunityPsychologist,23,135-147.
February 2016
Stevens,E.B.,Jason,L.A.,Ferrari,J.R.,Olson,B.,
&Legler,R.(2012).Senseofcommunity
amongindividualsinsubstanceabuse
recovery.JournalofGroupsinAddiction
andRecovery,7,15–28.PMCID:
PMC4217488
Tebes,J.K.(2005).Communityscience,
philosophyofscience,andthepracticeof
research.AmericanJournalofCommunity
Psychology,35,213-230.doi:
10.1007/s10464-005-3399-x.
Tebes,J.K.(2012).Philosophicalfoundations
ofmixedmethodsresearch.Implications
forresearchpractice.InL.A.Jason&D.S.
Glenwick(Eds.).Methodological
approachestocommunity-basedresearch
(pp.13-31).Washington,DC:American
PsychologicalAssociationPress.
Tolan,P.,Keys,C.,Chertok,F.,&Jason,L.
(1990).ResearchingCommunity
Psychology:IssuesofTheoryandMethods.
WashingtonDC:AmericanPsychological
Association.
Trickett,E.J.,Watts,R.J.,&Birman,D.(1994).
Humandiversity:Perspectivesonpeoplein
context.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
VandeVen,A.H.(1989).Nothingisquiteso
practicalasagoodtheory.Academyof
ManagementReview,14(4).486-489.doi:
10.5465/AMR.1989.4308370
VonBertalanffy,L.,(1969).Generalsystem
theory.NewYork:GeorgeBraziller.
Vygotsky,L.S.(1981).Thegenesisofhigher
mentalfunctions.InJ.V.Wertsch(Ed.).
TheconceptofactivityinSoviet
psychology.Armank,NY:Sharpe.
Wandersman,A.,Chavis,D.,&Stucky,P.
(1983).Involvingcitizensinresearch.In
R.Kidd&M.Saks(Eds.),Advancesin
appliedsocialpsychology(pp.189–212).
Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates,Inc.
Weiss,H.M.,&Cropanzano,R.(1996).
Affectiveeventstheory-Atheoretical
discussionofthesturcture,causes,and
consequencesofaffectiveexperiencesat
work.pdf.ResearchinOrganizational
Behavior,18,1–74.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 26
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice
Volume 7, Issue 2
Wilson,R.A.,Barker,M.J.&Brigandt,I.
(2009).Whentraditionalessentialism
fails:Biologicalnaturalkinds.”
PhilosophicalTopics,35(1and2).
Yalom,I.D.(2005).Thetheoryandpracticeof
grouppsychotherapy:5thEdition.New
York,NY:BasicBooks.
February 2016
Zimmerman,M.(1995).Psychological
empowerment:Issuesandillustrations.
AmericanJournalofCommunity
Psychology,23,581-599.
Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/
Page 27