Search

Commentary on the papers of the special issue identifies and discusses four themes: 1) strategies to bridge the gap between science and practice, 2) sources of community science questions of interest, 3) choice and quality of methods, and 4) epistemology and useful language for community science. The commentary identifies some limitations in the models proposed by the special issue authors, and proposes renewed attention to ecology, context and process in community change initiatives, calling for a common set of community level measures as one strategy to advance a community centered science agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 50 years since the 1965 Swampscott conference, the field of community psychology has not yet developed a well-articulated ethical framework to guide research and practice. This paper reviews what constitutes an "ethical framework"; considers where the field of community psychology is at in its development of a comprehensive ethical framework; examines sources for ethical guidance (i.e., ethical principles and standards) across multiple disciplines, including psychology, evaluation, sociology, and anthropology; and recommends strategies for developing a rich written discourse on how community psychology researchers and practitioners can address ethical conflicts in our work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a confluence of unique values and activities, the collective practice of community psychology is difficult to characterize in a simple way. Increasingly, however, professional contexts are laden with pressure to define any practice-from library work to medical interventions-in the orderly, compact language of traditional science. This trend has historically been resisted in the field by those sensing a fundamental lack of fit between the fluid, emergent aspects of community psychological practice and the fixed, precise language of classic science. In response to this “language-practice gap,” some have attempted to adapt the traditional language of science to better fit the field’s practice, while others have explored alternative languages of practice seemingly more indigenous to the messy “swamp” of actual communities. While the former effort leaves some theoretical contradictions intact, the latter tends to discount scientific identity entirely. This paper proposes a potential step forward by resituating questions of disciplinary language and identity within a current philosophical discourse where the nature of social science itself remains sharply contested. This suggests shifting attention away from “should webe a science?” to “what kindof science might we be after all?”; in turn, alternative languages may be re-cast as legitimate contributors to a kind of science more authentic to human communities-even a viable “science in the swamp.” One such language-philosophical hermeneutics-is presented as a particularly valuable supplement to traditional science. Illustrations highlight ways that hermeneutics may advance the formal language of the field towards a closer fit of what actually happens in practice, while preserving and even bolstering the empirical rigor and scientific identity of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the use of participatory action research (PAR) with children diagnosed with mental health issues. We argue that critiques from the sociology of childhood are useful for guiding PAR with children. First, we describe and critique values and assumptions that underlie research and practice with children who experience mental health issues. Second, we outline key qualities of the sociology of childhood, discuss their implications for PAR with children diagnosed with mental health issues, and touch on ethical issues. Five themes are explored: (a) values, (b) ontology/epistemology, (c) views about children, (d) agency/power in children’s relationships with adults, and (e) intervention/change focus. We conclude by encouraging community psychologists to consider PAR with children diagnosed with mental health issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reading the article, “Community psychology at the crossroads: Prospects for interdisciplinary research” (), there is a sense that community psychology is at a crossroad with regard to being an interdisciplinary field. This paper aims to offer insight and guidance to proponents of interdisciplinary research in the community psychology field by drawing on experiences in urban studies, which shares similar origins and interdisciplinary claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article comments on two emerging views of community psychology’s approaches to the use of research for responding to social problems in contemporary community contexts - (a) the formation of a new field of community science, or (b) the updating of community psychology research traditions. If community science is to become established as a field related to community psychology, its proponents will need to agree upon conventions of epistemology, foci of interest, methods, and standards by which its work can be judged so that it can be distinguished from other human sciences. These articles provide early sketches for what community science might be. However, as noted in this commentary, we need to heed signs of concern about community psychology’s continued relevance in public discourse regarding the analysis of and responses to social problems. While this special issue offers some promising responses to the concern of what the field can contribute, the field would be well served if we broaden our dialogue about a renewal of community psychology’s commitment to social justice and the need for its perspectives in the practice of research that seeks to address community-based issues in the early 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the relationship between crime and community organizing in poor communities. Social capital inheres in the aspect of social networks and norms that facilitate trust and the ability to achieve individual and collective goals. When neighbors exercise informal social control, they limit the likelihood of crime by creating the network conditions associated with social capital: communication, closure, and the ability to apply sanctions to enforce norms. The items used to measure collective efficacy derive from theories of social disorganization.