Ethics and Community Psychology

We all are enthusiastic about the current push to identify the competencies we bring to our work in communities and to learn how to best train students to acquire the competencies. Did you know that one of the ethical principles of psychologists is to be competent? Standard 2 of the ethical principles is “competence” – that a psychologist will only practice within the person’s competence boundaries, is obligated to acquire training to become competent and maintain competence, etc. See http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx .

One of the proposed competencies is evaluation. The importance of this competency was brought home to me recently when I reviewed an evaluation of a civic organization that had been conducted by a company that claims competence in conducting evaluations. In brief, like so many nonprofits these days struggling to survive, the Board of Directors of the civic organization was considering eliminating a ten year old program (call it “S”) because it was not financially self sustaining. Prior large financial donations from corporations and foundations had faded away so the parent nonprofit organization was subsidizing program S to keep it going. As overall resources tightened, the Board decided to rethink its continuance of its subsidy of program S and therefore to question the value of S’s brand. In this weak economy, I presume that many organizations are similarly scrutinizing their programs, divisions, etc. to excise the weaker units.

The Board of Directors contracted with a local company (a full service management company, in existence 15 years, that has contracts ranging from the federal government down to small community based organizations) to conduct an evaluation of program S. On paper, the company appeared competent. It defined evaluation as: “.. a process that critically examines a program. It involves collecting and analyzing information about a program’s activities, characteristics, and outcomes. Its purpose is to make judgments about a program, to improve its effectiveness, and/or to inform programming decisions. Evaluation is essentially the systematic investigation of the merit, worth, or significance of any object, activity, or program.” So far, so good. The materials go on to assert that a great evaluation should employ “rigorous methodology” and should be “inclusive,” “complete,” take in “diverse viewpoints,” etc

And yet …. I noted that the company’s content-filled website does not list the number of employees nor does it reveal a single name or expertise or background of its employees.

The sum total of the “data” for the completed “evaluation” was from one 90-minute focus group involving seven participants in the program (out of a pool of over 200). The final report was presented as a power point (only) and was wholly nonanalytic. Much time went into the company learning about program S and into recording and transcribing the focus group proceedings. They claimed to have used qualitative analysis software and “developed codes” (the codes being “strengths, challenges, suggestions.”) And despite all the accoutrements of a “rigorous methodology,” the body of the evaluation merely consisted of somewhat random quotes from the focus group participants, dealing with trivial or person specific issues OR that were trite. That suggests to me that the questions posed were not sufficiently incisive and the personnel conducting the focus group were not sufficiently skilled to guide the discussion so as to probe more deeply. In any case, this evaluation can be characterized by the Gertrude Stein quote – “there is no there there.”

Further, several of the negative quotes were so specific that the nonprofit staff could easily identify the person making the comment. (The staff had recruited the focus group participants.) For example, one person is quoted as saying that the staff had never taken him/her up on his/her volunteer offer to do x. I learned that the focus group participants were not informed that anything they said could be quoted, verbatim, although they were not attributed by name.

The company’s final recommendations were out of touch with the organization’s reality, e.g., one recommendation was to hire more staff to organize volunteers (whereas the organization is operating in financial crisis mode now and in the foreseeable future). The “next step” was to use the focus group results to “rebrand” program S with enhancements, even though the “focus group results” were inadequate to inform any substantive or feasible change. Needless to say, the organization (which had invested scarce resources in this effort) was unimpressed. The evaluation did not assist the Board of Directors in exercising its responsibility. Another program evaluation thrown in the trash.

We can (and must) do better in terms of the competence we bring to our work.

Gloria Levin

What do Community Psychologists do?

So I missed this meme by about a month, but while it was going strong my colleague in the Community & Cultural Psychology program here at UH Manoa created this tribute to what the world thinks a "community psychologist" does.

I think she nailed it. What do you think? How do you explain what you do, and does anyone ever really get it right?

Gina Cardazone, courtesy of Ashley Anglin 
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa

Psychology of Climate Change: Communicating How We Think

Community psychologists are very interested in understanding cultural ways of knowing. The concept of ‘ways of knowing’ is meant to indicate that our outlook on life is greatly impacted by how we are raised in our culture—the things we think about, how we think about these things, different ways we define a problem, different solutions we might come up with, etc. That is not to say that everyone within a culture thinks exactly the same.

A quick exercise:

1. If you are American, think for a minute and define “American culture.” Do you fit this definition?
2. Now pretend you are not American, and define “American culture.” How well do you fit this definition?

[If you are not American, substitute your own country or culture of your choice.]

As an American, I can think of a zillion ways in which I am not your average American. But when I place myself in the shoes of an outsider looking in, oh yeah, I can see a zillion ways in which I’m a pretty typical American. These are different ways of knowing. In studying cultural ways of knowing, patterns emerge. Yes, huge variations also exist, but cultural ways of knowing can help us to understand both the patterns and the variations. It’s all a matter of the outlook you have, and something psychologists like to call “the problem definition.”

One of my favorite examples of cultural divergences in the problem definition comes from a study done in the late 1960s. Greenfield (1997) summarized it this way:

“Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971) took an object-sorting task to Liberia, where they presented it to their Kpelle participants. There were 20 objects that divided evenly into the linguistic categories of food, implements, food containers, and clothing. Instead of doing the taxonomic sorts expected by the researchers, participants persistently made functional pairings (Glick, 1968). For example, rather than sorting objects into groups of tools and foods, participants would put a potato and a knife together because “you take the knife and cut the potato” (Cole et al., 1971, pg. 79). According to Glick, participants often justified their pairings by stating “that a wise man could only do such and such” (Glick, 1968, p. 13). In total exasperation, the researchers “finally said, ‘How would a fool do it?’ The result was a set of nice linguistically ordered categories—four of them with five items each” (Glick, 1968, p. 13). In short, the researchers’ criterion for intelligent behavior was the participants’ criterion for foolish; the participants’ criterion for wise behavior was the researchers’ criterion for stupid.”

In this example, researchers and participants were all clearly able to understand and demonstrate all possible solutions to the task. But because of their different cultural ways of knowing, they tended to define the problem and the solution in different ways. Their initial assumptions were different, and so they tended to draw different conclusions about what they should do.

Another quick exercise:

1. Google ‘climate change’ and read any article or watch any video clip that pops up.
2. Scroll down to the comments and read them until you feel your brain turn to pudding.

You may have noticed that people think about climate change very differently. We have different ways of defining the problem (e.g., global threat of environmental catastrophe, liberal conspiracy to rule the earth, real thing that’s happening but no biggie, etc.). With each of these problem definitions comes a separate set of solutions (e.g., large-scale mitigation and adaptation efforts, decentralize power and let the free market reign, do nothing because it’ll sort itself out, etc.).

There is actually a scientific consensus on climate change that has been consistent for multiple decades. Plenty of uncertainties remain, including how bad the problem is going to be depending on what people decided to do. Emit more carbon? Big problem. Lower emissions? Less big problem. But there is so much misinformation out there, and so much more poorly understood information that climate scientists are really beginning to struggle with questions about communicating their research and findings to the general public. How best to translate science jargon into human speak? But just as important, scientists are realizing that, as scientists, they make a series of assumptions about knowledge, research, and data that non-scientists don’t necessarily make. Their ways of knowing are different. Much like the researchers trying to get the Kpelle to categorize objects in a specific way, climate scientists would like non-scientists to understand their data in a certain way so as to come to the same conclusions

Because of our history of work with culture and ways of knowing, community psychologists can contribute to climate change communication. A few examples have recently emerged in this aspect of the psychology of climate change. The American Climate & Environmental Values Survey found a number of ways of knowing that influence Americans’ understanding of and response to climate change. For example, “We’re not ready to abandon the American Dream” (p. 16). Communicating climate change research within the framework of sacrifice, without also focusing on potentials for positive development, turns Americans off. Also, Americans often respond to one of two types of morality: ‘we should address climate change because it’s the right thing to do,’ or, ‘we should address climate change before disasters harm our environment, and thus, harm us.’

Another recent report, How to Talk About Climate Change and Oceans: A FrameWorks Message Brief, discusses specifically the ways Americans feel out of step with the scientific community on climate change. For example, “They remain woefully ignorant of how exactly global warming works” (p. 1, italics in original) even though they have plenty of examples of it happening at home and abroad. Many Americans require a foundational tutorial about how the climate operates normally in order to understand how and why it might be changing. But take care in communicating this because, “When scientific data is presented in ways that seem exaggerated or overstated, Americans become more skeptical of claims about the origins of the problem and more likely to believe that the problem could be natural and not anthropogenic” (p. 2, italics in original).

Climate change is a very broad field that is so very complex. Community psychologists can positively contribute to this field by exploring people’s ways of knowing when it comes to the climate sciences. As mentioned before, huge variations will always exist within a culture, even within our cultural patters. But if we work toward an understanding of the climate change problem definition, we can begin to agree on action steps leading to solutions.

Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1115-1124.

Citing:

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books.

Glick, J. (1968, February). Cognitive style among the Kpelle of Liberia. Paper presented at the meeting on Cross-Cultural Cognitive Studies, American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Kati Corlew, M.A.

University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Arts-Based Approaches and their Contribution to CBPR

“ABR practices have emerged out of the natural affinity between research practice and artistic practice, both of which can be viewed as crafts.”- Patricia Leavy

Many of us have heard about community-based participatory research (CBPR), whether it was in a classroom, a nonprofit board meeting, or an evaluation research team. However, we may not be as familiar with arts-based research or its relevance to CBPR. For this reason, we will be exploring arts-based research and its contribution to CBPR.

CBPR is oriented towards promoting agency and participation within the community and dismantling those ‘active researcher-passive participant’ power relations that have a long history in research. The goal is to build capacity for a more equitable experience when initiating and carrying out research in communities.¹

This approach to research is, in many ways, revolutionary. It stemmed from two historical roots: The northern tradition and the southern tradition¹. The northern tradition has influenced our value in collaborating to solve problems and altering power dynamics. The southern tradition, linked to Latin America, Asia, and Africa, began as an integration of liberation theory and practice.¹ This paradigm emphasized an emancipatory approach to the social science², and was greatly influenced by challenging the positivist approach to research and the domination of the people by the Colonizers; this orientation was championed by Paolo Freier.¹

These two paradigms have influenced the way we currently think about CBPR. There are four major elements to CBPR: participation, the co-production of knowledge and control, praxis and equitable distribution of power.¹ Community members are actively involved in the research process and are considered  co-researchers who share ownership over the creation, implementation, and dissemination of the study.¹ CBPR is a framework that fits well with our goals and practice as community psychologists and contributes to our intention of understanding the social context of individuals within their communities.⁴  The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have developed criteria to evaluate the participatory qualities of research projects, which can be found here. These aspects may be helpful to keep in mind when developing CBPR studies.⁹

Similar to CBPR, arts-based research (ABR) provides a unique and transformative set of methodologies that draw on various art modalities to address social issues.^6,7 This approach uses art forms such as literary arts, music, dance, drama, visual art, film and so on.^6,7 It has served as a medium through which researchers and communities can identify or raise consciousness about social issues, such as poverty, sex-trafficking, or homelessness.⁶  The work of Dr. Izumi Sakamoto and her colleagues provides a powerful example of what arts-based CBPR looks like. Their Coming Together project documented the experience of homeless women and transwomen in Toronto. In using staged photography (an art form that combines photography, theatre, dance, and painting), women expressed their experiences with social support, trauma, homelessness, and discrimination based on gender or transphobia. The researchers and advisory board (consisting of women who had experienced homelessness) held public presentations showcasing the work, and disseminated the findings to local policy makers and social service agencies.⁸

In arts-based research, we can definitely see how the core concepts of CBPR emerge. ABR is, in fact, action oriented and participatory.⁶ ABR is a creative and powerful tool that can be used to create compelling, contextual accounts of a community’s experience.⁶ When we look at the history of participatory approaches in community psychology we see that it has been an important tool for engaging communities and promoting empowerment.^3,4,5 As arts-based CBPR continues to expand, we hope to see a stronger presence in community psychology research and practice.

In the coming posts we will explore different methods embedded in ABR/CBPR, and would love comments on people’s thoughts or experiences of these approaches!

This post was written by Katherine Cloutier from Michigan State University, and Kyrah Brown from Wichita State University.

1. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical, and practice roots of community based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 27-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

2. Lykes, M. B., & Mallona, A. (2008). Towards transformational liberation: Participatory and action research and praxis. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 106-120). London: Sage Publications.

3. Kelly, J. G. (1971). Qualities for the community psychologist. American Psychologist, 26, 897-903.

4. Kelly, J. G. (2003). Science and community psychology: Social norms for pluralistic inquiry. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3/4), 213-217.

5. Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

6. Leavy, P. (2009). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

7. Finley, S. (2008). Arts-based research. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 71-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

8. Sakamoto, I., Ricciardi, J., Plyler, J., & Wood, N. (2007). Coming together: Homeless women, housing and social support. Toronto: Centre for Applied Social Research, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto.

9. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2004). Community-based participatory research: Assessing the evidence. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD.

Exploring Arts-Based Approaches to Community Psychology Research and Practice

Hello! 

This is Kyrah from Wichita State, and Katherine from Michigan State. As two students in community psychology programs we have become intrigued by, and invested in, arts-based participatory methods. As we begin to explore these methods and how they may be particularly useful when working in empowering and social justice oriented ways, we will be writing reflexive pieces here on the Community Psychology Practice Blog. 

Throughout our exploration we have decided to begin a posting series related to Arts-Based Approaches to CBPR (community-based participatory research). We are hoping these posts will be informative (regarding arts-based methods that practitioners are using), reflective (for us to share our experience using methods as well as our general reflections to how specific methods may be particularly useful for community psychologists), and inspirational (encouraging other students and scholars to explore arts-based methods further). We are also hoping for people to comment on our posts – give us feedback, share past experiences, anything – we’d love to hear it!

Please keep your eyes open for more posts coming soon!

Kyrah & Katherine

If a Community Psychologist Ran for President....

What would our candidate’s platform be?

         
          Suppose that platform was based on commonly-held community psychology and community practice values. And suppose the time has come to launch the campaign with a policy address. Our candidate approaches the microphone. Might the speech sound like this?  

“My fellow Americans, I stand before you at a watershed moment in our country’s history. I won’t repeat here the serious and multiple challenges that threaten our way of life; they are all too familiar by now.  But I think we can agree that both our major political parties have failed to meet those challenges; and that, as presently constituted, they are unlikely ever to meet them in the future.

“Clearly we need a new approach and a fresh point of view. And so we offer a new vision for our country’s future – a different vision, but a realistic and sustainable vision, one that, in the words of our forefathers, will promote the general welfare, establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty, and insure domestic tranquility, as well as provide for personal security and well-being, for generations to come.

          “The centerpiece of our platform is based upon strong local community life. We will help build and maintain vibrant, cohesive, and supportive communities across the United States.  Why the community? Because that’s where almost all of us lead our daily lives, and gain the satisfactions that make life worth living. That’s where we build and keep relationships with others that lead to friendship and trust. That’s where we can act together to reach common goals. That’s where we can more easily get things done, and see the fruits of our efforts. Both other parties have failed to recognize these basic truths. And so they have missed a major opportunity to revitalize and to transform our society.

          “We will work to strengthen citizen participation in community life, because all citizens must be able to participate in decisions that affect them; because participation builds relationships; and because participation is enjoyable, pure and simple. But more than that, let us say frankly that citizen participation is essential  in the budgetary hard times we live in. Participation is fulfilling, even joyful, but it  is also the obligation of a citizen living in our society. The hard truth is that we have asked little of our citizens other than to pay taxes and obey the law; this must change. We will not ask citizens to police the streets or haul the trash, but we will encourage and expect every resident to participate in his or her community to the best extent possible – not simply as a “volunteer,” although volunteering is commendable, but rather as a basic accompaniment of citizenship.

“We will aim to build competencies in every community member, and provide every opportunity to acquire competence in such fields our citizens choose – because building competence fulfills our human potential, and equally because it fosters self–reliance, independence, and personal responsibility. Building competence also empowers people, which is more than a buzz word for us; we must translate empowerment into practice. We both want and need an empowered citizenry – or as one of our other presidential candidates has put it, “people power,” echoing the words of Saul Alinsky.     

“We of course will promote diversity, not just to honor diversity or celebrate diversity, but to utilize diversity – the varied talents and interests of all members of our communities. There is something for everyone to do – we believe ‘everyone is a perfect something’ – and the tasks ahead of us are too important to do anything but maximize each person’s contribution.

          “Social justice is one of our primary values and presidential campaign themes. We will foster it by drawing on the diverse talents we have mentioned. But economic justice is vitally important as well. We care about the very poor, the near poor, the poor in substance, and the poor in spirit. By building cohesive communities, where people feel connection and kinship with each other, the wealthier among us will be more likely to share resources with the less fortunate. Yet that is not enough. Although we value entrepreneurship, and support fair profits, we stand behind national and local policies that ask the wealthy to pay more – because morally that is the just thing to do, and because pragmatically, as we have learned in recent books such as The Spirit Level, a more equal society is also a healthier and more robust society in virtually every way. 

          “We stand neither for big government nor for small government, but for generative government – for government as catalyst, government as partner, government as facilitator.  Government must ensure provision of basic needs, and beyond that help support other activities in the public interest.  Toward that end, we will teach and train. We will consult and advocate, stimulate and energize, collaborate whenever we can. We will give technical support, and offer modest monetary incentives, especially for new creative solutions. We will evaluate results and be guided by actual data, for we are committed to scientific method and to evidence-based practice. And we will provide moral leadership for our community vision, helping to realize it in every community across the United States. These are not empty words, for our party’s leadership is made up of community psychologists with tested skills for creating community change.  Who knows better than community practitioners how to strengthen community life?

“How much will this cost? The good news is comparatively little. Our vision will be cost-effective in the long run. For when communities and community members are energized, organized, and active, we are certain that dollar costs to maintain our quality of life will be significantly less than when the community is indifferent, fragmented, and passive.

“Finally, through these combined efforts, and throughout our villages, towns, cities, and neighborhoods, we will build a strong sense of community. Because with that sense of community, we are more likely to comfort and support our fellow community members, and be supported by them, in times of need. Because that sense of community will sustain us in times of adversity. And because it will make our lives fuller and richer. The most important resources in our communities are our community members themselves; and so a primary goal in our platform is to identify and utilize all our capacities and skills – our best human qualities, qualities that have for so long been unrecognized and untapped in our communities.   

          “So when we take office, we will build communities that will meet our material needs, but that will be especially rich in social infrastructure and in human relationships. They will be what our colleague John McKnight has called “abundant communities” – abundant in our ties to each other and in the great pleasures that come from being connected to something larger than oneself.

          “It is true that we are late entrants into this race. Realistically, there may not be time for us to win this particular election. But, mark my words, our ideas and our focus on strong community life will be the wave of the future, by necessity if not also by choice.  Community life will and must be the foundation for a new society that will be sustainable, secure, self-renewing, and deeply satisfying. We hold that vision high. And we invite all of you who are listening to share that vision with us and help transform it into reality.”  

The speech concludes. What is your reaction?

Do you support such a platform?

Would this community psychologist candidate win your vote?

    

Bill Berkowitz

Department of Psychology

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Pushing Open the Doors

The moment she started talking and telling me about her doctoral program, I was hooked. That day the clouds revealed rays of light, shining down on me, and I had found the ultimate doctoral program. After graduating from college it took me more than 8-years to find my calling and a discipline that would integrate my knowledge and experience. In 2007, I began a doctoral program with an emphasis on community psychology in the Psychology in the Public Interest Program at North Carolina State University. Since then, I have been exposed to a variety of experiences, individuals, and opportunities that have reinforced my decision and have aligned themselves with my professional goals. However, over the past four and half years I have had to explain what community psychology is and, on occasion, deal with individuals who would respond with “That sounds like social work” or “Isn’t that social psychology?” My adamant “no” followed by terms used from systems thinking and the ecological model left them still wondering “So what is community psychology again?” For me, I never second guessed my decision to pursue this degree or ever had an “identity” issue as a doctoral student in my program. I knew what I wanted and how the program would provide that. It was through my doctoral experience that I wanted to find ways to work with individuals that would continue to promote and advocate on behalf of community psychology and the myriad ways in which we contribute to shaping psychology and the larger world. How was I going to do that? First, I needed to apply for fellowships or other opportunities that would provide me with the platform to discuss my program and CP. Secondly, I needed to get in front of undergraduates and other prospective students and inform them about my discipline and focus. I also needed to apply the principles of community psychology and go out and make connections with community-based organizations. Use the principles and methods I have learned in courses, through conversations and training and apply them within a setting that required me to negotiate my role as a community psychologist. The struggle is not in my own validation, but in exposing people to a field that will lead communities towards innovation, transformation and liberation. I am constantly learning and wanted to share this blog space with other doctoral students and CPs. I do encourage each and every one of us to seek those spaces and, if they are not there, create them and push open the doors loudly so that people will know who and what we are.

Dawn Henderson

Doctoral Candidate

Psychology in the Public Interest

North Carolina State University

Dawn_henderson@ncsu.edu