Pragmatism, Praxis, and Predictive Theory

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

Pragmatism, Praxis, and Predictive Theory

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

Learning From Coalitions' Efforts to Promote Equity and Justice.

Coalitions and collaboratives are working to address many of the most pressing contemporary health and social issues. The articles in this special issue provide numerous insights into these complex collaborative processes across different contexts and focal issues. All emphasize and scrutinize the strategies that groups are using in their work. These strategies seek to navigate not only conventional notions of effectiveness but also the challenges of pursuing greater equity and justice. In this concluding article, we distill some of the key insights from these articles as a collective. This special issue on collaborating for equity and justice can serve as a launching point for new efforts by coalitions and researchers pursuing policy, systems, and structural changes, particularly those intent on addressing root causes of health and social disparities

Malaysian validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth

Empowerment is a process by which people and groups gain control over their lives and environments. The emotional component of psychological empowerment has been assessed using a measure of sociopolitical control. Prior research has measured sociopolitical control as a construct with two dimensions: (a) leadership competence and (b) policy control. This study tested the factor structure of the Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SPCS‐Y) in a sample of Malaysian secondary school students (n = 364; mean age = 16) involved in 3 afterschool programs. Analyses found support for the bidimensional factor structure by using factor loadings and modification indices to reduce the scale from 17 to 8 items. Participants with higher scores on both dimensions of the SPCS‐Y were found to have higher levels of psychological sense of community, school connectedness, and perceived agency. These findings provide support for a measure of youth empowerment in Malaysia and build on recent findings from other nations

Intersections of Competencies for Practice and Research in Community Psychology

The Community Psychology Practice Competencies (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012) have helped the field of community psychology clarify the skills necessary to engage in community practice in our discipline and have begun to be used for designing curricula and other educational tools in community psychology training programs. Many community psychologists, however, combine elements of both practice and research in their work, and research skills are less represented in the practice competencies than other types of skills. Society for Community Research and Action’s Council on Education recently developed a set of Community Psychology Research Competencies to provide additional depth of understanding of the types of skills and knowledge associated with rigorous and impactful research in community psychology. This paper describes the research competencies and their development and considers them in the context of the existing practice competencies in the interests of expanding the understanding of how research and practice intersect in our training programs and our work in both academic and non-academic settings. An action-research cycle model is presented to help explain how practice and research competencies complement one another and how both are informed by a common set of principles guiding all the activities of our field. Recommendations are then offered for integrating the research and practice competencies across practice- or research-focused training programs

Intersections of Competencies for Practice and Research in Community Psychology

The Community Psychology Practice Competencies (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012) have helped the field of community psychology clarify the skills necessary to engage in community practice in our discipline and have begun to be used for designing curricula and other educational tools in community psychology training programs. Many community psychologists, however, combine elements of both practice and research in their work, and research skills are less represented in the practice competencies than other types of skills. Society for Community Research and Action’s Council on Education recently developed a set of Community Psychology Research Competencies to provide additional depth of understanding of the types of skills and knowledge associated with rigorous and impactful research in community psychology. This paper describes the research competencies and their development and considers them in the context of the existing practice competencies in the interests of expanding the understanding of how research and practice intersect in our training programs and our work in both academic and non-academic settings. An action-research cycle model is presented to help explain how practice and research competencies complement one another and how both are informed by a common set of principles guiding all the activities of our field. Recommendations are then offered for integrating the research and practice competencies across practice- or research-focused training programs

Stories of self, us, and now: narrative and power for health equity in grassroots community organizing

IntroductionCommunity organizing initiatives, which build power through cycles of listening, participatory research, collective action, and reflection, have demonstrated the capacity to intervene on, complicate, and resist dominant societal narratives while promoting alternative public narratives focused on shared values and hope for a better future.MethodsTo explore processes of public narrative change and their relationship to community and organizational empowerment, we interviewed 35 key leaders in community organizing initiatives in Detroit, MI and Cincinnati, OH about how narrative change takes place within community organizing practices.ResultsLeaders’ perspectives revealed crucial roles for narrative and storytelling in guiding individual and collective behavior, supporting the development of relationships of trust and accountability, and linking personal and collective experiences to pressing social issues.DiscussionFindings from this study indicate that systemic change is a labor-intensive process and one that requires the development of leaders (stories of self) and the cultivation of collective structures (stories of us) capable of enacting power to effect change with urgency (stories of now). We conclude by discussing implications of these findings for public narrative interventions and related health equity promotion efforts