Community Psychology in
the United States: History &
Future
Prof. Douglas D. Perkins
Community Research & Action
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
Director, Center for Community Studies
d.perkins@vanderbilt.edu
INTRODUCTIONS EXERCISE:





1. Introduce yourself
2. Where have you lived?
3. What do you feel is your "community?"
How would you define it? (this is individually
and subjectively defined; there are no right
or wrong answers)
4. What is your community's most pressing
problem? (What are the problem's
psychological or behavioral components?)
5. What are your community’s strengths or
assets?
Definitions of Community
Psychology:

“the psychological study &
solution of community, social &
mental health problems”
OR

“the applied study of the
relationship between social
systems & individual well-being
in the community context”
Tenets or Themes of
Community Psychology:


CP is both an applied social science &
vocation
AND
an analytical perspective.
[applicable to any field, career, or life in
general]
Tenets or Themes of
Community Psychology cont’d:

Also extremely central to CP: an ‘action’
orientation, i.e. social innovation, change, &
evaluation.
• "real world" utility of applied research (e.g.,
program or policy evaluations) in community
and organizational settings, not "ivory tower"
laboratory
• “praxis”: the process of translating an
intellectual idea, theory, or lesson into the lived
reality of practice, action, and experience.
More Themes of Community
Psychology:


CP acknowledges our humanity &
thus our values: Positivism is
dishonest in pretending to be valuefree.
CP challenges traditional modes of
thought and authority: healthy
skepticism of established “truths”, the
powerful, & “experts”.
Community Psychology helps you see
the world ecologically (as an
interconnected system):


CP person-environment
fit: change the setting Complexity must match reality: units
interact within and across levels:
to fit the person
Individual/family/group
multiple levels of
Organizations (mediating
analysis & intervention
structures)
Community/Society
dynamic, naturalistic
process




The meaning of ecology and
related concepts






Bio-ecology, social ecology, human ecology: study of
organisms and groups in context of multi-level interdependent
systems and their evolution over time
Oikos (Greek) = house
Habitat: the place or type of site where a plant or animal
naturally or normally lives and grows (Webster’s)
Ecosystem: the complex of a community and its environment
functioning as an ecological unit in nature
Kurt Lewin: "action research," B=f(P,E)
Other ecological concepts:
• behavior is nested in a series of concentric contexts
• a phenomenological (subjectively perceived) orientation
• person-environment "fit"
• reciprocal action between person & environment (coping
mechanisms)
Bronfenbrenner (1996)

Ontogenetic: individual level of
development

Microsystem & Mesosystem (see below)

Exosystem: community environment
Macrosystem: societal level
(politics, economics, mass culture)

Microsystem: immediate social environment (family, classroom, peer group);
Mesosystem: relational links between microsystems (eg, work influence on
personal life)

Kelly's 4 ecological principles for planning
community interventions:
Principle
Basis
Lessons for intervention
Interdependence
Speaks to the existence of mutual influence between
elements of a system, in the form of relationships: all
humans and our institutions are connected within
and across levels of analysis in such a way that any
action by one of them has an impact on the rest of
the system.
Interventions then must necessarily
(1) be aimed at these multiple layers
of influence and (2) be conducted so
that any changes benefit all invested
parties.
Cycling of
resources
Recognizes that resources are ‘re-cycled’ within
social settings and that there are processes through
which resources are created, defined and distributed.
Resources include people’s time and effort as well as
physical resources.
It is then vital to know how a system
already cycles its resources before
starting any intervention.
Adaptation
Reflects the process of change elements of a system
(people/ groups) often necessarily go through in
order to cope with a restricted, stressful, & possibly
toxic environment. Key elements:
niche = habitat within which a given creature can
survive
niche breadth = the range of habitats w/in which
creatures of the same type are found
This calls for consideration of the
resources and toxins present in
people’s lives when attempting to
understand their behaviour.
Succession
Stable, orderly social &/or physical change in a
community. Environments change and that, through
these changes, make visible the various groups and
resources existing within the social system.
Learn from these changes who has a
stake in the intervention proposed and
how resources are currently allocated.
Levine’s (1969) 5 Ecological principles of
practice in community psychology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A problem arises in a setting or in a situation;
factors in the situation cause, trigger, exacerbate
and/or maintain the problem.
A problem arises because the problem-resolving
(i.e., adaptive) capacity of the social setting is
blocked.
To be effective, help has to be located strategically
to the manifestation of the problem.
The goals and values of the helping agent or service
must be consistent with the goals and values of the
setting.
The form of help should have potential for being
established on a systematic basis, using the natural
resources of the setting, or through introducing
resources which can become institutionalized as part
of the setting.
Ecological Research Methods Example
(Perkins & Taylor, 1996, AJCP):

Multiple Measures (sources of data) to crossvalidate/triangulate:
• Block Environmental Inventory
• Resident (or Organization Member or Leader) Survey
• Qualitative Methods (Open-ended interviews, Content
Analysis)
• Archival data (e.g., organizational records, police crime
reports)
• Census and Other Large Sample Surveys

Focused on Context at Multiple Levels:
• Individual
• Individual Relative to Group
• Aggregate + truly contextual units (Organization,
Community)
• Multilevel Analysis (eg, HLM, Contextual Analysis, GIS)

Over Time:
• Longitudinal designs, time series
More Themes of Community
Psychology:


2nd-order change: fundamental change
in the system’s structure, goals, or
values.
CP appreciates cultural diversity &
individual rights, freedom, justice, &
dignity.
4 Key Community Psychology
Concepts:
“SPEC”: Strengths, Prevention, Empowerment,
Changing Community Conditions
Strengths
• individual & community strengths &
competencies, not weaknesses, handicaps,
pathology (medical model)
4 Key Community Psychology
Concepts:
“SPEC”: Strengths, Prevention, Empowerment,
Changing Community Conditions
Prevention
• CP intervenes earlier in the problem development
process to be both more effective & more
efficient:

crisis intervention -> early detection &
intervention -> primary prevention
4 Key Community Psychology
Concepts:
“SPEC”: Strengths, Prevention, Empowerment,
Changing Community Conditions
Empowerment
• “voice & choice”
• people participating in and taking control over
the institutions that affect their lives;
professionals & scientists as partners or
collaborators, not experts.
4 Key Community Psychology
Concepts:
“SPEC”: Strengths, Prevention, Empowerment,
Changing Community Conditions
Changing Community Conditions
• CP gets at root causes of problems by addressing
the underlying community conditions

Dohrenwend applied these ideas in a comprehensive stress &
intervention model (see Levine et al. Chapter 3)
Exercise/Discussion:
Split into 4 groups
Each group take a different SPEC concept
[Strengths, Prevention, Empowerment,
Changing Community Conditions] and
brainstorm real or hypothetical examples of
intervention strategies, programs, or
policies that apply your concept. How is
it/could it be implemented? What public
&/or private sector partners [organizations,
institutions, community groups] should be
involved? How?
THE ORIGINS OF
COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY IN THE
UNITED STATES
The Limitations of Clinical,
Behavioral, Social, & Testing
Psychology
Historical Influences on the Development of Community Psychology in the U.S.
Decade:
Perceived Threat
Societal Response:
Influential Discipline/Authors:
1880s
Genetic “inferiors”
Social Darwinism
Biology, Ecology/Darwin
1890s
Victorian repression
Liberalism
Psychology/Freud
1900s
Illiteracy,immorality
Pragmatism, democracy
Philosophy, Education/Dewey, James
1910s
Immigrants
Settlement houses
Social work/Addams
1920s
Industrial urbanism
Chicago School
Sociology, Inst.-Human Relations/Park, Burgess,
McKenzie, Wirth, Lynd
1930s
Economic
depression, Fascism
New Deal
Economics, Social Psych/Weber, Durkheim, Lewin
1940s
War, genocide
Globalism
interdisciplinary/Lewin, Warner, Whyte, Mead, Hobbs
1950s
Legal racism
Civil Rights
Law, Social Sci./Clark, Chein & Cook, Hunter, Long
1960s
Institutions, poverty
Change conditions (CMH,
Great Society, Head Start)
Comm. Dev., Policy, Planning, Eco psych/Swampscott,
Biddle, Gans, Sarason, Kelly, Barker, Albee
1970s
Reactive Medical
Model
Primary Prevention
Public health, Dev. Psy., Env. Psych/Cowen,
Dohrenwend, Levine, Newbrough, Altman, Proshansky,
Bronfenbrenner, Stokols
1980s
Oppression
Empowerment
Poli.Sci.,Org.Studies/Rappaport, Argyris [since ‘60s],
Heller, Cherniss, Keys, Zimmerman
1990s
Class/race/sex/cult.
hegemony
Human/method Diversity,
Strengths, Globalism
Anthropology, Eco methods/(Bourdieu, Flyvbjerg,
Freire), Riger, Shinn
2 current/
future
directions:
1. Disease
Tech. innovation
Bio, redux/ (CP w/in Psych in flux, shrinking)
2. Simplistic
reductionism
Interdisciplinarity (to
integrate all the above)
Transdisciplinary eco-psycho-political action-research/
Saegert, Maton, Watts, (Perkins, Prilleltensky, Speer)
Community Psych as a
Paradigm Shift


"paradigm": theoretical or
methodological model, or a
conventionally accepted way of
looking at, understanding, or doing
things (Kuhn)
"paradigm shifts" caused by faith,
values, & politics, esp. in social
sciences & human services
Each group discuss what you know (or think
you know) about one of the following
branches of psychology:



• clinical psychology/mental health care (study & treatment
of social, behavioral, & emotional dysfunction)
• behaviorism/classical & operant learning (study &
application of control of animal & human behavior
through extrinsic reinforcers—rewards & punishment)
• social psychology (study of interpersonal & group
perceptions, behavioral interactions, and attitudes)
• psychometrics/testing psychology (measurement of
human intelligence, aptitudes, personality, performance)
Examples of historical & current research topics and
practices?
What does it have to offer a psychology dedicated to solving
the problems & promoting the strengths of people in
communities?
What are its problems & limitations both in general and in its
implications for/applications to community psychology?
Problems with behavior theory and
research for Community Psychology

Operant psychology: - based on lab study of single,
nonhuman organisms

fails to address power relationships, operation of social
institutions

power to control both positive & negative reinforcers
open to abuse

behaviorism fails to allow for individual & cultural
diversity,

community, institutional, or societal behaviorism: world of
conformity & docility, technology without values
(Orwell's 1984 rather than Skinner's Walden II)
Problems with behavior theory and
research for Community Psychology #2



behaviorists have not shown how human or animal
behavior occurs naturally (anthropology, ethology), only
how it can be manipulated in a laboratory, workplace, or
similarly controlled institutional setting
behaviorism unable to account for creativity &
culturally-specific behavior (ignores activities that are
intrinsically reinforcing in favor of extrinsic reinforcers,
such as money or tokens)
ignores structural & institutional constraints, & so may be
used to justify or maintain the status quo of social
inequality
The History & Ideology of Social
Psychology

cyclical history of social psychology: more applied during
climates of social upheaval & reform. In between & for the last 20
years, social psychology has focused on laboratory studies of
intra-psychic (cognitive) factors in the social behavior of
individuals & small groups.
Conclusion: social psychology has become less & less
"social" with regard to:
1. the over-reliance upon laboratory research methods,
2. the exclusive focus on the individual (or dyadic) level of
analysis,
3. the social irrelevance of the matters studied

Why community psychologists have been so concerned with:
1.recognizing & embracing their own values, &
2.concentrating on field research of relevant extra-individual
behavior in the social environment from an ecological systems
perspective
Limitations of psychometrics (testing
psychology) from a community perspective:
Social Darwinism, eugenics
Sir Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin: no coincidence that
father of testing also a eugenicist


American psychologists used Alfred Binet's IQ test to:
• label children & limit educational opportunities to them,
• to isolate people in institutions &
• to limit immigration of ‘undesirables’
Some of the most distinguished American psychologists were
behind such ventures. For example, Henry Goddard used
'mental tests' to examine large numbers of immigrants &
concluded that 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of
Italians, & 87% of Poles & Russians were "feeble minded."
Limitations of psychometrics #2


Lewis Terman, in his famous book The Measurement of
Intelligence (1916), suggested that children of genetically
"inferior races...should be segregated in special classes...
They cannot master abstractions, but they can often be made
efficient workers... There is no possibility at present of
convincing society that they should not be allowed to
reproduce, although from a eugenic point of view they
constitute a grave problem because of their unusually prolific
breeding” (quoted in Ryan, 1976, p.306).
Similarly, the renowned experimental psychologists Robert M.
Yerkes & Carl Brigham used the results of the U.S. Army's
WWI testing of recruits to argue that Blacks & Southern
Europeans are intellectually inferior to those of Nordic
descent. (It is worth noting that, not coincidentally, it was
the same Carl Brigham who later developed the Scholastic
Aptitude Test & served on the College Entrance Examination
Board.)
Limitations of psychometrics #3
We now know that tests of mental ability were
culturally & linguistically biased (Q: Are they
still?) & that, in any case, they do not measure
purely innate intelligence.

In the 1920s & 30s, however, the conclusions of
testing psychologists were used to keep out
"undesirable" immigrants, hundreds of thousands
of whom would suffer & die because of the
holocaust, which was simply Nazi-style eugenics.
Conclusions re testing:

1.
2.
3.
4.
For community psychologists, there are four important
points to note in the preceding history of psychometrics:
psychology based on the study of individual
differences is often misused when drawing
conclusions about groups
fairness to individuals & disadvantaged groups should
come before institutional/scientific interests
scientists must remain alert to the easy misinterpretation
& misapplication of their data
experimental & professional psychologists have never
been isolated from social & political influence, & so
should not hide behind a false mantle of scientific or
professional authority
The "Progressive" View of The History
of Mental Health Care

4 Revolutions in MH Care --> (population encompassed)
1.
Pinel, Dix & "Moral Treatment" (1800) -------> (psychotics)
2.
Freud & insanity continuum (1900) ---------> (neurotics)
3.
Community MH Centers (1963) --> (victims of social pathology)
4.
Milestone Primary Prevention (1970s, 1980s) ----> (everyone)
PROGRESSIVE THEMES in history
of psychopathology & MH care:


locus of causality: internal (intrapsychic) external (environment)
causal determinism: religious/moral
genetic (Social Darwinism)cultural
(Lewis)social construction of
pathology (Szasz)
PROGRESSIVE THEMES in history
of psychopathology & MH care #2

treatment approach:
burning->imprisonment->
therapy->prevention

treatment orientation: deficit(deviant,
weakness)/labels-> competency, strengths

corresponding ideology: discriminatory->
humanistic/civil rights/ equality
PROGRESSIVE THEMES in history
of psychopathology & MH care #3
prevention stage:

•
tertiary->secondary->primary

intervention age: adult->teen->early
childhood->pre/peri-natal

level of analysis/intervention:

individual->groups, families->organizations->
institutions, communities
The "Revisionist" View of the
History of Mental Health Care


"progressive" view encourages the temporal
bias of "presentism”
Revisionist history shows inconsistent
progress & a more cyclical pattern of reform
& concern over environmental causes (e.g.,
during settlement house movement) alternate
with periods of conservative retrenchment &
intra-psychic or moralistic determinism
(Levine & Levine, 1970), i.e., approach to
solving social & mental health problems
related to political climate of the times
The "Revisionist" View of the
History of Mental Health Care #2



poor & "deviant" removed from society for
whose "protection"? (Erikson, 1966: Wayward
Puritans)
poor more likely to receive "physical" treatments
& neglect (Grobb, 1973; Hollingshead & Redlich,
1958)
other cyclical patterns: periods of genetic,
intra-psychic &/or cultural determinism &
tendency to "oversell" new treatments & policies
as panaceas (or cure-all "fads")
An Important Example of a Revisionist
Cycle and Unintended Consequences:
Deinstitutionalization


reduction of hospitalized psychiatric population
(& other kinds of institutions, e.g., mentally
retarded, prisons & reform schools) through
release of long-term, "warehoused" patients
into the community, shorter stays for all
admissions & fewer admissions
placement in alternative community settings
(e.g., "half-way houses," supported
employment, outpatient services, crisis
intervention) is more feasible, may be more
effective & certainly more efficient than
hospitalization
Causes of
deinstitutionalization
1.
change in involuntary
commitment laws (effective
treatment, "danger to self or
others")
2.
psychotropic medications
3.
CMH Centers Act (1963)
Effects of
deinstitutionalization

more humane & effective treatment

greater quality & use of their lives
BUT, also…
 increased homelessness (1/3 mentally
ill, 1/3 alcohol & drug abusers, 1/3
un/under-employed)

inadequate "aftercare”

"revolving door" phenomenon
Conclusions about the history of
Mental Health Care





social change made old approaches to mental health
care inadequate
ideology determined treatment laws
economic & political concerns killed humane efforts &
led to "warehousing"
legal, economic, & political factors continue to shape
the changes in mental health care
From both historical perspectives (Progressive &
Revisionist), the history of mental health care points
to need for prevention & more humane treatment &
"empowerment" of the broadest variety of
disadvantaged populations.
Foreword to Principles of Community
Psychology by Seymour Sarason
“Prior to this edition, this book was unrivaled for its
scope and depth of the obvious and not-so-obvious
psychological implications of what American
communities are: what problems they face, how
they do and do not change.
What this new edition makes abundantly clear is that
what we call a community is glaringly porous:
in the modern, highly technical, mobile world,
a community is affected by events near and far
from its borders, events that are psychological,
sociological, economic, political, and legal…”
The Future of Community
Psychology


International Community Psychology
Interdisciplinary Community Psychology, but using
what paradigm?
• Same 2 CP options of the past 4 decades but applying
international and interdisciplinary work more
systematically:
1. Psychosocial stress process (prevention) model
(Dohrenwend, 1978).
2. Comprehensive, interdisciplinary model for ecologically &
“psycho-politically” valid action-research (Prilleltensky;
Christens & Perkins, in press) (“empowerment-plus”)
•
Which paradigm should CP choose? If neither,
what should be the paradigm for CP in the future?
Does CP need a paradigm?
Community &
Organizational
Development
Political
Action
Situation
In
Environment
Situational Mediators,
Material Supports or Handicaps,
Social Supports or Handicaps
Transient
Stress
Reaction
Stressful
Life
Event
Psychological
Characteristics of
Person in Event
General
Education &
Socialization
Psychological
Growth
No Substantial
Permanent
Psychological Change
PsychoPathology
Psychological Mediators,
Aspirations and Values,
Coping Abilities/Disabilities
Individual
Skill
Training
Crisis
Intervention
Corrective
Therapies
Figure: A model of the process whereby psychosocial stress induces psychopathology and some conceptions of
how to counteract this process (from Dohrenwend, 1978).
Discussion Question:

Where do poverty, unemployment,
and related social problems fit into
Dohrenwend’s model? How can
psychology in general and CP in
particular address such problems?
Discuss in pairs [you don’t have to
share this with class]:
Describe a major or minor stressful life event you have experienced
[anything you don’t mind discussing].
2.
What were the personal factors [personality, resilience, skills,
knowledge, habits, needs, etc.] that led to the event or helped or
hindered your stress response?
3.
What were the environmental factors [social/people, physical,
cultural, political, economic…] that caused the stress &/or added to it?
4.
What was the outcome of the event and its negative &/or positive
impact on you?
Opportunities for Intervention Based on Above & Dohrenwend:
1.
Did you receive any “crisis intervention” of any kind? Did/would it
help?
2.
How could you have coped with, or adapted to, the stress
psychologically or behaviorally?
3.
What kinds of social or material supports might have helped you
cope with the stress situation? Were they available to you?
4.
Do you have any personal psychological characteristics that
increased the likelihood of the stressful event? What kind of
intervention could address those characteristics to prevent the event?
5.
What situation in the environment increased the risk of the stressful
event? How could that have been dealt with or prevented?
1.
Comprehensive Ecological Model for Analyzing power
Dynamics across 4 Domains of Capital & 3 Levels
Consequence or stage of empowerment/wellness:
Domain of
Environment/Capital:
Oppression
(state)
Liberation/Empowerment
Wellness
(process)
(outcome)
Political:
Economic:
Physical:
Level of Analysis/
Intervention: Socio-cultural:
[POLITICAL CAPITAL]
[FINANCIAL CAPITAL]
[PHYSICAL CAPITAL]
[SOCIAL CAPITAL]
political & economic
structures in society that
threaten social wellness; both
oppressed populations &
reactive actions of policy
makers & stakeholders.
collective social action,
community organizing &
networks; movements,
techniques, community
processes & societal
policies that lead to
attainment of popular goals
macro-level social variables
that affect human wellness.
Scrutinizes social policies
for optimal promotion of
community wellness
Meso/
Organizational
Group/
Relational
organizations that violate
standards of social justice for
workers & communities;
group inequities in social
wellness
both change in organizations
creating social problems &
organizational learning, decisionmaking, & development in
groups & institutions addressing
social oppression & justice
Identifies/promotes
participatory organizational
opportunities & methods of
reducing social threats &
enhancing social wellness
Micro/Individual
Personal/
Psychological
relationship between settinglevel social conditions &
individual powerlessness,
helplessness, internalized
oppression, guilt, & physical
& mental problems
Individual human capital
(skills, knowledge),
behaviors, & beliefs that
affect immediate conditions;
social & political
consciousness, activism,
leadership, & self-efficacy
relationship between social
variables & personal wellness;
dynamics promoting selfdetermination, pride,
empowerment, health, personal
growth, meaning & spirituality
Macro/
Collective/
Structural/
Community
(emotional, cognitive,
behavioral, spiritual):
Think about your research &/or intervention interests
or a project you have worked on & consider the
following Questions related to oppression:
The following questions need to be repeated for the 3 levels of analysis
and can be applied to any one of the 4 environmental domains. Your
research may lend itself to one or more of the environmental
domains, in which case you would ask these questions to all
applicable domains.
1. What are the power relations present at the macro, meso, and
micro levels of analysis?
Who are the players in the relationship? There may be multiple
relationships at play. Some players may be oppressors in one
setting and oppressed in others.
2. What exchanges take place over time among the various players at
the various levels?
How do people in various power positions interact with each other.
What are the dynamics operating here? How do people in various
power positions engage with each other? What techniques do
people use to oppress others or to resist oppression?
3. What are the consequences of these power relations at the various
levels of analysis?
What are the effects of power relations at the different levels for the
multiple players involved? What are the repercussions of oppression
for the various individuals or groups?
Questions related to
liberation/empowerment:







We are conceptualizing liberation and empowerment as a
process. This process may be naturally occurring in the
environment, without external intervention, or it may be the result of
a planned intervention.
1. What strategies are being implemented at each level of analysis
to change the oppressive power relations?
What are the formal and informal strategies people use to resist
oppression and pursue liberation? These may be naturally occurring
processes or generated by a planned intervention. If you are
studying a social phenomenon, there may be resistance processes
taking place in the environment already.
2. What inhibiting and facilitative factors influence the strategies
and change processes discussed in question 1 above?
Here we would like to know what factors help or hinder strategies to
empower and liberate individuals and groups. What kinds of
conditions enable people and groups to resist? What circumstances
block the development of consciousness and empowerment actions?
3. What tactics are used to strengthen the facilitative factors and to
reduce the inhibiting factors?
Once you have identified inhibiting and facilitative factors, we would
like to know what tactics individuals and groups use to address
them. How do they overcome barriers? How do they reinforce
positive directions toward liberation?
Questions related to wellness

1.
2.
3.
4.
We are conceptualizing wellness as an outcome.
What was the ideal outcome of your overall strategies in terms of
power relations?
As a researcher, what do you consider the ideal outcomes of
empowering and liberation processes?
What was the expected immediate outcome of your tactics in
terms of power relations?
Whereas #1 refers to the best ideal scenario, #2 refers to your
more realistic expectations of what can be achieved under the
existing circumstances.
What were the obtained or actual outcomes of your tactics in
terms of power relations?
Looking at natural and/or planned change processes, what were the
actual outcomes for the people involved? Did they last? If so, for
how long did the effects last? Was there an improvement in
terms of wellness because of power equalization across people,
groups, communities, nations?
How do you explain the outcomes?
How do you explain potential gaps between actual and ideal or
expected outcomes. What is your theory for explaining how
wellness is or is not achieved at the various levels of analysis? Is
it possible that wellness is easier to achieve at the lower levels of
analysis than at higher levels? How does power equalization
affect wellness at various levels of analysis?
Final Questions:
1.
2.
3.
Can Community Psychology survive
in the future within departments and
organizations of psychology?
Should it become a more truly
interdisciplinary field (“community
research & action”)?
What are the possible costs and
benefits of #1 and #2?
Where to find full text explanation &
argument for the last model:


http://www.powercommunity.blogspot.com/
Prilleltensky, I. (in press). The role of power in wellness,
oppression, and liberation: the promise of psychopolitical
validity. Journal of Community Psychology.
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~isaac.prilleltensky/power.htm

Christens, B., & Perkins, D.D. (in press). Transdisciplinary,
multilevel action research to enhance ecological and psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology.
http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/~douglas.d.perkins/ChristensPerkins
.JCP7.rtf


Center for Community Studies
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/ccs/
Monterey Declaration of Critical Community Psychology:
http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/~douglas.d.perkins/ccpdecl.htm