Volume 7, No. 2

Leonard A. Jason, Ed Stevens, Daphna Ram, Steven A. Miller, Christopher R. Beasley, Kristen D. Gleason

Theories in the Field of Community Psychology

• PDF

In this article, we review some of the key attributes of useful theories and assess whether these attributes are present in several prominent Community Psychology theories. The field of Community Psychology often deals with complex systems and attempts to create change through the use of multiple mechanisms.  It has provided researchers new ways of thinking about contextual factors and how participants could be more involved in research efforts.  However, this field has encountered significant challenges in testing and evaluating theories that involve system-level environmental change. It has struggled to establish consensus when operationally defining criteria and when creating reliable instruments for measuring theoretical constructs.  We conclude that Community Psychology theories have tended to function as frameworks, which indicate important elements to examine, but do not specify relationships that can be used for explanation and are, therefore, too broad to make the types of predictions characteristic of science. Because Community Psychology theories have often served as orienting frameworks, there needs to be more discussion about their usefulness, and whether community psychologists can develop more rigorous and specific theories. This has implications for formulating various practices and for discussions about how future research can better inform theory.

John P. Barile, Anna R. Smith

Our Theories Are Only As Good As Our Methods

• PDF

Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) argue that the vast majority of theories in community psychology are actually frameworks, while specific and testable theories remain scarce. Suggesting that community psychology could benefit from such theories, the authors identify several impediments to theory development: researcher unwillingness, difficulty defining and operationalizing constructs, and difficulty capturing context. This response addresses the last challenge, highlighting the importance of using appropriate methods when developing testable theories. The difficulty is that context matters, and the vast majority of theories are conceived, tested, and “validated” within a single context – most often at the individual level. Therefore, as the context changes, so must the theory and arguably, the methods. We propose that community psychology’s frameworks provide a useful starting point for theory development and increased focus on innovative methods that account for and measure context are a prerequisite to developing testable, ecologically relevant theories.

Bill Berkowitz

Alternatives to Theory Development

• PDF

Start with the preliminaries: It’s good that Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason’s (2016) paper has been written and that we’re responding to it. Discussions of theory are relatively rare in the community psychology literature; for that reason alone I’m glad this is happening.

The paper itself features a thorough and sophisticated exposition of theory and what theory is supposed to do, based on the twin premises that community psychology should be a science and therefore be guided by conventional standards of scientific inquiry. This is followed by a useful descriptive and critical review of three current theories in the field, and then by a particularly compelling and challenging analysis of prospects for future theory development, one worthy of close re-reading. 

Brian D. Christens

Pragmatism, Praxis, and Predictive Theory

• PDF

Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) invoke particular views of “true science” (p. 4) and “hard science” (p. 7) in their call for “more rigorous and predictive theory” (p. 21) in community psychology. They explain that a theory (as opposed to a framework or a model) makes predictions about causal relationships that are specific enough that they can be empirically tested and either verified or falsified under various conditions. They claim that by moving from frameworks guiding inquiry and action toward unambiguous predictive theories, the field will be “of greater value to the larger scientific community” (p. 3) and could “go a long way toward making significant progress in understanding how complex systems and the contexts in which people live can influence their lives” (p. 7). Their article is valuable for the debate it will produce by staking out such a clear position on a topic on which, as the authors note, viewpoints vary. In my view, the central thrust of their article – away from a pragmatic action orientation to inquiry and toward testing of predictive theories – could actually hamper the field’s progress toward its goals, if adopted more broadly in the field of community psychology.

Isidro Maya Jariego

Ecological Settings and Theory of Community Action: “There is Nothing More Practical Than a Good Theory” in Community Psychology

• PDF

Practical Than a Good Theory” in Community Psychology

"There is nothing more practical than a good theory" (Lewin, 1952, p. 169). Since its inception, community psychology has been characterized by simultaneously pursuing the social utility of scientific knowledge and the theoretical value of practice (Lewin, 1946). Theories contribute to community change, while the lessons learned in community intervention in turn contribute to improve our knowledge of social reality. In terms of action research, theoretical models perform a central role in mediating between science and practice. However, when we ask community psychologists which models they consider essential for community research and action, the picture is very complex. Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) did this exercise, consulting the electronic mailing list of the Society for Community Research and Action. Both researchers and professionals involved in community intervention participate on this list, and the inquiry resulted in a list of approximately 32 theoretical frames. Without being exhaustive in the inquiry, it is striking the number and diversity of theoretical models mentioned. Some of them are not theoretical models. Others are not even part of psychology. As I will elaborate below, community research of the last several decades provides a basis for proposing a systematic view of community settings and a theory of the processes of community action and change.

Christopher B. Keys

Cacophony is Music to our Minds

• PDF

The clarity of a single note played beautifully can be a highlight of a musical performance. Jason, Stevens, Ram, Beasley and Gleason (2016) do us a service by reminding us of the distilled clarity that arises from a pure note played well in community psychology. In science this can includes theory-based predictions that are tested and affirmed, or tested and either discarded or improved. Such clear moments can be uncommon and are special instances of scientific progress. Seeking such clarity of theory is important in advancing science. On the other hand, in my first year of college, an insightful music major commented that the history of progress in music appreciation is the story of listeners learning to appreciate new forms of dissonance. Science is music to the ears and minds of researchers and is about many things. Developing theory-based predictions that enable us to predict and control is an important one, but only one of many, as Jason and his colleagues (2016) note. For this brief comment I focus primarily on generativity as a one of several valuable functions of scientific theory that is given little attention by some of the sources Jason and colleagues cite in defense of their position.

Raymond P. Lorion

Theories in Community Psychology: Do They Matter and Why?

• PDF

Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason’s (2016) Theories in the field of community psychology challenges community psychology to reflect on its scientific maturation. It is noteworthy that the title of their analysis refers to the field rather than the discipline of community psychology. Typically, a field designates a line of inquiry or area of study within a recognized scientific and professional base of substantive expertise, i.e., a discipline. I would posit that a sine qua non of a science-based community psychology discipline would be foundational knowledge built upon accepted theoretical explanations of how the physical, psychosocial, political, economic, cultural, and related salient setting characteristics shape human behavior and well-being. Jason et al. (2016) correctly question whether, after nearly a half century, the scientific community in general recognizes community psychology and the social scientific community specifically as a theory-based discipline. Therein lies their question! To that the current discussion add my question i.e., do they matter and why?

Jennifer Watling Neal

Phenomenon of Interest, Framework, or Theory? Building Better Explanations in Community Psychology

• PDF

Theories are a fundamental part of research. They provide guidance for the development of research questions and testable hypotheses as well as inform study methods and designs. However, in this issue, Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) raise important questions including: Are prominent “theories” in community psychology really theories? How useful are these “theories” for developing specific predictions and testable hypotheses? And, how can the field continue to develop and test theories that promote its agenda of social change? To answer these questions, Jason et al. (2016) identify and evaluate three “prominent theories” in community psychology – the ecological perspective (Kelly, 1968), psychological sense of community theory (Sarason, 1974), and empowerment (Rappaport, 1981). Based on their evaluation, they “conclude that community psychology theories have tended to function as frameworks” (p.  2). That is, these “theories” provide general guidance for what elements to study but fall short of offering specific predictions about the relationships between these elements. Jason et al (2016) conclude that the lack of predictive and explanatory theories in community psychology hinders progress in both the research development of explanatory mechanisms of social change as well as practice initiatives to promote social change. However, despite these major contributions, in this response I contend that the “prominent theories” identified by Jason et al (2016) were never intended to be theories in the first place. While Jason et al (2016) are right to call for more application of theory in community psychology, I provide a more optimistic view of the field’s current use of theory. 

Jean E. Rhodes

Celebrating Our Evolving, Interdisciplinary, Contextually-Embedded Field

• PDF

What use is a theory if it cannot describe, explain, specify, and predict phenomena of interest? Applying this metric, Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) demonstrate the limits of three of the foundational theories of community psychology. The challenge for these and other theories stems from the field’s complexity and multiple levels of analysis. Consequently, many of the defining constructs (e.g., neighborhood, social ecology, empowerment) are insufficiently specified and tested. Yet, in light of the inherently interdisciplinary nature of community psychology, its attunement to evolving societal issues, and its broad, multi-level foci, one could argue that community psychology may never yield to the rigors and conventions of traditional psychological inquiry in ways that produce a distinct unifying theory. 

Glenn A. Williams

In Defence of a Multi-Paradigmatic Approach to Theory Development in Community Psychology

• PDF

It was once said, “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Lewin, 1952, p. 169) and yet Community Psychology (CP) as a practical discipline is beset with a theory-practice gulf that does not appear to be narrowing.  The article by Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) plays a commendable role in outlining the challenges faced by community-based researchers and practitioners in developing, testing and utilizing theoretical approaches that could reliably benefit the health and well-being of target groups in a community.  Quite rightly, Jason et al. (2016) have acknowledged that theories used in the field of CP should more accurately be termed as frameworks, rather than constituting actual theories, since theories would be expected to offer a comprehensive methodology for explaining and predicting behaviors in a range of settings. And herein lies the problem… Should the CP discipline be aimed at transposing findings, and theories, developed from research conducted in one type of social environment to a host of other potentially similar social settings?  Researchers and practitioners alike may experience tensions in attempting to replicate an intervention, based on a theory, with other samples and settings.  There are recent worrying trends from one study to show that with “the current (selective) publication system [in academic journals], replications may increase bias in effect size estimates” (Nuijten, et al., 2015, p.172). Likewise, we find there is a tendency in academia to avoid publishing non-significant findings (Franco, Malhotra, & Simonvits, 2014), even though a more honest and transparent approach to theory development and testing in CP would be through registration of hypotheses before a study has commenced, just as Jason et al. (2016) have endorsed.  This would certainly be a way forward, but until funding agencies and academic journals are unified in their insistence for all a priori hypotheses to be communicated prior to conducting a study, this may be only one way to build theories that are trustworthy in the field of CP.

Jacob Kraemer Tebes

Theories, Models, and Science in Community Psychology

• PDF

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the paper by Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) entitled, “Theories in the Field of Community Psychology.” The authors tackle an important, but often neglected issue – the use of theories in science – and consider how well theories in community psychology advance scientific inquiry. Jason et al. (2016) provide a valuable service to our field in their examination of theories in community psychology, and specifically, theories in three major areas: ecological theory, sense of community, and empowerment. Their brief review of theory in each area provides a useful summary and a call to action for further specification of theory. They have started a conversation vital to our field’s future. Despite my enthusiasm for several parts of their paper, I have a number of concerns. These include the authors’: 1) assumptions about contemporary science, 2) assessment of theories in community psychology relative to those in other fields in psychology, 3) overemphasis on theory as opposed to models in science, and 4) lack of attention to other epistemologies in community psychology that hold scientific promise for our field. I discuss each of these briefly below.

Leonard A. Jason, Ed Stevens, Daphna Ram, Steven A. Miller, Christopher R. Beasley, Kristen Gleason

Our Reflections on the Reactions to “Theories in the Field of Community Psychology”

• PDF

We recognize that our article (Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, & Gleason, 2016) will be controversial, and we are delighted that it has sparked some lively discussions. 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 recommendation represents a significant and constructive step forward. Our reflections on a number of the issues raised by those who wrote reactions to our article are below.