Search

This is a response to the Nowell and Boyd (2010) article printed in this journal titled: Viewing Community as Responsibility as Well as Resource: Deconstructing the Theoretical Roots of Psychological Sense of Community. In that article, they argued that the McMillan theory of Sense of Community is a simplistic, needs-based theory that excludes responsibility as a part of Sense of Community. They base their critique of McMillan's theory on March and Olsen's many articles. In this article, McMillan responds. He argues that Nowell and Boyd (2010) have yet to understand his theory and that they use a false dichotomy to critique it. He suggests that Third Position Thinking (Newbrough, 1995; Newbrough & McMillan, 2005) would help undo false dichotomies and provide a better description of the juxtaposition of human values. McMillan contends that responsibility is an inherent part of his theory. (Contains 3 footnotes.)

Newbrough's Third Position is discussed in terms of its utility as a framework within which to understand and resolve interpersonal differences, seemingly irresolvable diametric differences, and conflictual situations. The framework's essential elements and its application is illustrated through the presentation of a series of fictitious scenarios that open with conflict and close with a resolution in which the interested parties feel heard and satisfied. The intent of the commentary is to re-introduce community psychologists to this framework and encourage its consideration, application, and investigation in responding to community-based conflicts and the resolution of seeming impasses. The Third Position is presented as a valuable tool for the community psychologist involved with conflict resolution, community consultation, and community development.

In commenting on Prilleltensky's (this issue, pp. 116-136) interesting and provocative article, the authors share with readers their perspectives on empowerment as a concept and as an intervention strategy. Conceptually, they appreciate the seeming paradox that "someone" would acquire control over a less than satisfactory situation by having "someone else" involve themselves in facilitating the former's access to control over that situation. The means by which that transfer, if it actually occurs, becomes permanent "and" irreversible is unclear. By definition, empowerment typically refers to "making or causing to be in a state of power." The implication of the term is that the members of one group (the "Wanters") depend on the actions of the members of a second group (the "Empowerers") to gain access to heretofore lacking power, resources, or influence. This process seems straightforward enough until one recognizes that access to that goal is typically controlled by yet a third group (the "Powered"). Inherent in the issue is the understanding of power. Does it refer to the capacity to acquire an intended outcome through force and confrontation? Does it instead refer to the capacity singly or more likely through disciplined and coordinated action to achieve a personally and socially desirable outcome? The strategies through which one would alter levels of power within an individual or group will differ considerably depending on how power is understood to exist within individuals and to be expressed within and across situations. Therefore, the first step in any empowerment initiative is to define the nature of the power to be shared or altered and to delineate how it will change and be sustained after the intervention. Prilleltensky's concept of psychopolitical validity opens consideration of a significant question for the Empowerers: "Can genuine empowerment occur without some form or degree of disempowerment of the Powered?" The authors believe that successful empowerment is unlikely to occur in a sustained manner without a substantive shift in power from the Powered to the Wanters. In effect, therefore, empowerment implies, indeed requires, disempowerment. The authors end with another question: Do these newly disempowered now become of concern for the Empowerers?

First-order and second-order models of sense of community (SOC) were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data gathered from a random sample of community residents (n=293) located in the midwestern United States. An 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS) was developed to represent the SOC dimensions of needs fulfillment, group membership, influence, and shared emotional connection. The CFA results for the BSCS supported both the scale's hypothesized first-order and second-order factor structure. The overall BSCS scale and its subscales were also found to be correlated as expected with community participation, psychological empowerment, mental health, and depression. Findings provide empirical support for the BSCS and its underlying multidimensional theory of SOC. Implications of the study are described and directions for future research discussed. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)

First-order and second-order models of sense of community (SOC) were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data gathered from a random sample of community residents (n=293) located in the midwestern United States. An 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS) was developed to represent the SOC dimensions of needs fulfillment, group membership, influence, and shared emotional connection. The CFA results for the BSCS supported both the scale's hypothesized first-order and second-order factor structure. The overall BSCS scale and its subscales were also found to be correlated as expected with community participation, psychological empowerment, mental health, and depression. Findings provide empirical support for the BSCS and its underlying multidimensional theory of SOC. Implications of the study are described and directions for future research discussed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although sense of community was heralded by Sarason (1974) as the ‘over-arching value’ of community psychology, no theory or definition of the phenomenon has been operationalized or empirically tested. The difficulty in the scientific exploration of sense of community is in the value-laden and phenomenological nature of the experience. Following McMillan and Chavis (this issue), it is theorized that sense of community is represented by four elements: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. Brunswik's lens model offers an appropriate method for determining the shared domain of the experience within a diverse population. The goal of this study was to develop a Sense of Community Index (SCI) that would allow the determination of the relative influence of various factors on the judgment of sense of community. Twenty-one judges, representing four professional groupings selected from three urban centers, where employed in the rating of 100 sense of community profiles of randomly selected individuals. There was a high degree of consensus among the diverse groups of judges, and a regression equation with 23 predictors derived from the sense of community profile accounted for 96% of the variance of mean judges' ratings of overall sense of community. The results were interpreted as supporting the theory of McMillan and Chavis, which appears suitable both for scientific investigation and as a framework for intervention. The relationships of specific profile items (e.g., neighboring behavior, length of residence, home ownership, involvement in voluntary associations) are related to the four elements and to the prediction of overall sense of community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For several years many of us at Peabody College have participated in the evolution of a theory of community, the first conceptualization of which was presented in a working paper (McMillan, 1976) of the Center for Community Studies. To support the proposed definition, McMillan focused on the literature on group cohesiveness, and we build here on that original definition. This article attempts to describe the dynamics of the sense-of-community force—to identify the various elements in the force and to describe the process by which these elements work together to produce the experience of sense of community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years the social problems of youth have been described in terms of delinquency and alienation. Social intervention programs with youth, however, have tended to focus only on the overt disruptive behavior of delinquency. These programs have been disappointingly unsuccessful, perhaps because of their overly narrow conceptual orientation. This paper reviews some of the major theories of delinquency from an ecological perspective, and relates them to an ecological view of alienation. The result is a preliminary sketch of an ecological theory of social satisfaction. It is proposed that common mechanisms underlie alienation and delinquency as negative socialization outcomes as well as penetration, integration, and achieved success as positive socialization outcomes. Some implications of this idea for understanding the behavior of youth axe discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]