American Evaluation Association
Community Psychology Topical Interest Group
Book Review
March 2014
Book: Jason, L.A. & Glenwick, D.S (Eds.). (2012). Methodological Approaches to
Community-Based Research. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Reviewer: Brian Hoessler, Community-based Researcher and Evaluator, Saskatchewan,
Canada
One key distinguishing feature of community psychology is its interest in looking beyond
the individual to examine what happens in organizational and community settings.
Unfortunately, a historical reliance on individualistic methodological approaches can
make it difficult to engage in research that is both rigorous and sensitive to community
contexts. Jason and Glenwick (2012)'s Methodological Approaches to Community-Based
Research is designed to redress this imbalance by presenting methodologies that go
beyond group-means and correlational approaches, guided by the principles of
methodological pluralism and mixed-methods research. In introducing these approaches,
this book acts as a useful resource for those engaging in community-level research.
Writing for audiences which encompass multiple identities and perspectives always
presents challenges, and given that community psychology and evaluation are both
pluralistic fields representing academic researchers and practitioners from varied
contexts, it would be difficult to create a guide to mixed-methods that would appeal to
all. The volume’s preface indicates that the intended audience includes researchers
investigating modern-day social issues, graduate students looking to develop their
awareness of these areas, and community-based professionals who may be charged with
designing and evaluating interventions aimed at the community level. As an independent
consultant with a focus on community-based research and evaluation, the opinions I
present inthis review are informed primarily by that third perspective.
After a brief introductory chapter by Jason and Glenwick, the book begins with an
overview of philosophical foundations for mixed methods research by Tebes. Individuals
more oriented towards practice may be tempted to skip this chapter, but understanding
the roots and reasoning behind this approach to research is crucial when working with
collaborators who may span the continuum from positivist and quantitative to
constructivist and qualitative. Likewise, Barker and Pistrang's Chapter 3 on the
implications of methodological pluralism and criteria for evaluating research using
pluralistic approaches can provide a common basis for researchers from diverse
backgrounds. Chapter 4 examines the use of mixed-methods approaches that integrate
qualitative and quantitative methodologies. I enjoyed the practical example of a mixedmethods research program, particularly Campbell et al.'s honest reflections on the
challenges posed by this approach, how reality diverged from their plans, and their
ultimate realization of how using mixed-methods helped prevent them from reaching
erroneous conclusions.
1
The remaining chapters in the book focus on specific methods, each with a brief
introduction to the approach and an example of its use: I found that this division of theory
and methodology generally provided a useful introduction without delving too deeply
into the details. Most of these chapters included supplemental information through the
book's companion website,such as data sets for practice: unfortunately, the utility of this
data is decreased for practitioners who may lack access to programs such as SPSS and
SAS.
Chapters 5 through 7 examine alternate methods of grouping data. Dymnicki and Henry's
chapter on cluster analysis and Bogat et al.'s introduction to the person-oriented approach
provide a good overview of these methodologies and their benefits compared to
aggregate methods such as ANOVAs and correlational analysis. The brief introduction to
the person-oriented approach particularly piqued my interest.Unfortunately, the chapter's
focus on statistical methodology made it difficult to understand the general approach and
its potential applicability. As presented, these two approaches appear to be so specialized
that they cannot be used easily outside of an academic or institutional research context.
Durlak and Pachan’sintroduction in Chapter 7 to meta-analysis includes a useful example
that demonstrates this method's growing utilizationin the evaluation sphere. The authors'
focus on the steps and features associated with a quality meta-analysis ensures that this
chapter is equally useful for community practitioners who are more likely to be
consumers of this research approach rather than producers.
Chapters 8 and 9 focus on methodologies involving change over time. As demonstrated
in Hoeppner and Proeschold-Bell's chapter on time-series analysis, these approaches can
be particularly useful in evaluation contexts to investigate causality, especially in
community settings where the use of randomized control trials may be infeasible or
inappropriate. Formative and developmental evaluations can benefit from using survival
analysis, as described in Connell’s contribution, to identify predictive factors for program
completion or post-intervention relapse: I would have preferred a real-world example
over a hypothetical case to further emphasize the potential utility of this approach.
The final four chapters’focus on methods for analyzing contextual factorswould likely be
themost interesting to community practitioners; however, the details can make these
methods challenging to implement. Multi-level modeling, covered by Todd, Allen, and
Javdani in Chapter 10, is useful for analyzing nested data whereevaluations encompass
both individual- and community-level information.The complexity involved in such
analyses,however,puts this beyond the use of most community practitioners. Jason,
Porter, and Rademaker introduce the epidemiological approach in Chapter 11, connecting
a long-standing public health method to our field. The section ends with chapters on
Geographic Information Systems by Morton et al. and economic cost analyses by Lo
Sasso and Jason. These methods are increasingly important for community research and
evaluation, so I was thankful to see their inclusion in this volume.
If asked whether this book would be useful for a community practitioner who identifies
with community psychology and evaluation, my answer would likely be, "it depends".
The diversity of community contexts and partners encourages a broader awareness and
2
appreciation of the expanse of methodologies and approaches if for no other reason than
to avoid a completely blank-faced expression when a potential client, research colleague,
or community partner inquiries about your familiarity with Method “X”. In addition, the
inclusion of research examples in most chapters can help practitioners understand the
potential applications of these methods, thus expanding our evaluation "toolkits" as we
encounter novel situations in our work.
Notwithstanding the stated audience of both researchers and community professionals,
the focus and tone of the book feels more strongly weighted towards academia. This
approach can be advantageous in several situations.For example, I look forward
toutilizing this book as a reference when working with academic partners in communityuniversity research partnerships. However, many of the presented examples and methods
fall outside the realm of practitioners who are working independently or in small
organizations.More practical examples of economic cost analysis, time-series analysis, or
even the person-oriented approach using more readily availableanalysis tools would
greatly add to the book’s context and speak to a broader audience of evaluators. To be
fair, methods such as meta-analyses or multi-level modeling are often beyond the means
of an independent practitioner, but some approaches could be adapted for use on a
smaller scale.
Overall, Jason and Glenwick’s volume is a usefulresource for academic researchers and
community practitioners, especially those working with university partners.
3