Swampscott in International Context: Expanding Our Ecology of Knowledge

In this paper, I offer reflections as someone from outside the United States about the Swampscott conference. I refer to Fryer and Fox's (The Community Psychologist, 24, 2014, 1) critique of the “Swampscott discourse” and its role in fixing the birthplace of community psychology. While the critique is important, I note the growing references to international community psychology and the need to view the discipline as a product of social political realities in different contexts, as well as dynamics of dominance and marginality in knowledge production in psychology. The work in the Global South presents opportunities to contribute to developing a decolonizing community psychology through expanding the ecology of knowledge.     

V. M. BEKHTEREV IN RUSSIAN CHILD SCIENCE, 1900S–1920S: “OBJECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY”/“REFLEXOLOGY” AS A SCIENTIFIC MOVEMENT

In the early 20^th century the child population became a major focus of scientific, professional and public interest. This led to the crystallization of a dynamic field of child science, encompassing developmental and educational psychology, child psychiatry and special education, school hygiene and mental testing, juvenile criminology and the anthropology of childhood. This article discusses the role played in child science by the eminent Russian neurologist and psychiatrist Vladimir Mikhailovich Bekhterev. The latter's name is associated with a distinctive program for transforming the human sciences in general and psychology in particular that he in the 1900s labelled “objective psychology” and from the 1910s renamed “reflexology.” The article examines the equivocal place that Bekhterev's “objective psychology” and “reflexology” occupied in Russian/Soviet child science in the first three decades of the 20^th century. While Bekhterev's prominence in this field is beyond doubt, analysis shows that “objective psychology” and “reflexology” had much less success in mobilizing support within it than certain other movements in this arena (for example, “experimental pedagogy” in the pre‐revolutionary era); it also found it difficult to compete with the variety of rival programs that arose within Soviet “pedology” during the 1920s. However, this article also demonstrates that the study of child development played a pivotal role in Bekhterev's program for the transformation of the human sciences: it was especially important to his efforts to ground in empirical phenomena and in concrete research practices a new ontology of the psychological, which, the article argues, underpinned “objective psychology”/“reflexology” as a transformative scientific movement.     

Teaching Community Psychology into Obscurity: A Reflection on Community Psychology in South Africa

The terms “community” and “community psychology” need to be examined within the context of human diversity in order to understand the apparent marginalisation of community psychology in South Africa. Community psychology might be marginalized as the term “community” tends to be associated with black, poor individuals. Current teaching practices in community psychology in South Africa may unwittingly reinforce these stereotypes by having predominantly junior, black and female staff teach community psychology, by generally introducing community psychology at post-graduate level only, and by making community psychology courses predominantly elective. These common teaching practices might contribute to producing raced, gendered and classed student perceptions of community psychology which would devalue psychological activity in communities as less important than individual psychotherapeutic practice in middle class communities. South African psychology would be better able adequately prepare psychologists for public mental health service with a more thoughtful infusion of community psychology teaching into most graduate programmes. Some of the ways in which our teaching can challenge our own and others' views about community psychology in local and international perspectives are discussed.     

“操作性定义”和“证伪标准”不足以为心理学奠基

在学科的主流叙事中, “科学性”被视为心理学的基本特征。长久以来, 实证主义的方法论为心理学提供了学科精神内涵。具体而言, “操作性定义”和“证伪标准”成为了心理学“科学性”甚至知识的合法性的判断标准。可心理学的这个方法论基础存在几个方面的问题：首先, 并非所有的科学概念都可以给予操作性定义; 其次, 全称存在命题和统计规律无法经验证实和证伪; 其三, 共有的自然科学方法不足以体现心理学的独特价值。因此, 来自于成熟自然科学的方法论并不足以为作为独立学科的心理学奠基, 心理学背后的本体论承诺对本学科的方法选取有自己特殊的要求, 只有本体论承诺才能为心理学作为独立学科提供逻辑起点。重新反思心理学作为独立学科的逻辑基础, 对于解决学科分裂危机具有建设性意义。     

“It's the Way That You Do It”: Developing an Ethical Framework for Community Psychology Research and Action

In the 50 years since the 1965 Swampscott conference, the field of community psychology has not yet developed a well‐articulated ethical framework to guide research and practice. This paper reviews what constitutes an “ethical framework”; considers where the field of community psychology is at in its development of a comprehensive ethical framework; examines sources for ethical guidance (i.e., ethical principles and standards) across multiple disciplines, including psychology, evaluation, sociology, and anthropology; and recommends strategies for developing a rich written discourse on how community psychology researchers and practitioners can address ethical conflicts in our work.     

建立儒家人文主义的学术传统:由文化“复建”到文化“复兴”

本文回顾了作者跟随杨国枢教授推动本土心理学的学术历程,并依据自己的切身体会,提出本土心理学运动必须以科学哲学作为基础。作者身体力行,在最近二三十年间,深入学习科学哲学的理论,逐步建立本土心理学的相关理论。其最终目标,是打算以儒家文化作为基底,吸纳西方近代文明的菁华,“中学为体,西学为用”,摆脱西方学术的宰制,建立“儒家人文主义”的自主学术传统。作者认为,唯有大力发展本土社会科学,建立华人“自主的社会科学传统”,华人学术社群才有可能走出“学术自我殖民”的心态。     

Toward a distinctive community psychology: An ecological metaphor for the conduct of community research and the nature of training

In conclusion, I have attempted today to cast the current status of the field of community psychology within the framework of partial paradigm acquisition—to slightly revise Ray Lorion's phrase, of promises kept, and promises still to keep—and have outlined one fledgling perspective which, I hope, will stimulate discussion and debate about the field's future. In focusing on the conceptual connections among community research, the research relationship with citizens, and the training of community psychologists, I have put my money on the unfinished business of integrating the historical values of the field with its research and training efforts. If, when conducting our work, be it as Director of a CMHC, research scientist, social activist, or mental health practitioner, we “see,” we have a world view that focuses on the community-embeddedness of our programs and the persons they are designed to serve, if we develop a perspective that centers on the creation and expansion of resources for our community, and if our actions for the quick fix are embedded in a vision about the long haul, then we can, by both wordand deed, assert both the distinctiveness of community psychology and further the aspirations underlying the creation of our field. Let me close by sharing with you the only paradigm joke I know. Fortunately, it's on target for my purpose here today. René Descartes is attending a cocktail party and is approached by a waiter. Would you care for a cocktail, Mr. Descartes?, the waiter says. “I think not,” says Descartes, and promptly disappears. For Descartes, paradigm premises held consequences for ensuing behavior. Let us remember Descartes.     

Personal and community sustainability

Many community members reduce their community involvements as they more through midlife. This may be true for community psychologists as well. Yet research evidence suggests that-intellectually, at least-we can function at or near peak levels through our 80s and 90s. How then might we best sustain ourselves and our work through our entire lives? Answers may lie in full exercise of all capacities, in strong support networks, and in actions that meet one's deeper needs, “the needs of the soul”. These same principles may sustain community life as well, for some key principles of personal and community sustainability may be similar. Applications of these ideas to communities and to community psychology are discussed.     

人格心理学的学科架构初探

人格心理学作为心理学体系中的重要分支之一,自创立以来却一直缺乏一个完整统一的学科架构。这种状况极大地限制了该学科的发展。文章回顾了人格心理学的起源和发展,探讨了学科发展的趋势,呈现了当下几种主要的学科架构。在综合比较的基础上,对其中有代表性的Clonlinger人格“描述—动力—发展”的“3D”模型进行了修正：（1）增加了人格理论;（2）把第一个“D”由“人格描述”改为“人格表现”;（3）对原有“3D”的内容进行补充和完善。得出了对人格心理学学科架构的“3D”修正模型：即理论加“3D”     

当代社区和谐观的质性探索

为探索社区居民及社区骨干的社区和谐观,在13个社区对24名受访者进行深度访谈。立足社区心理学中国化的视角,对27万字访谈文本进行主题分析发现:(1)社区和谐可划分为安定式和谐、融洽式和谐、共赢式和谐三种形态,三者层层递进,分别反映了大众对“不吵不闹”的良好社区秩序、“仁慈友爱”的良好社区氛围和“蓬勃发展”的良好社区局面的理解和期盼;(2)社区和谐的成因包可以从宏观和微观两个角度把握,其结果可以从时程(长期/短期)和场域(全局/局部)两个角度归纳。总之,当代社区和谐观是对中华优秀传统文化的继承,并具有时代的特色。     

Reflecting on Participatory,Action‐Oriented Research Methods in Community Psychology: Progress,Problems, and Paths Forward

This paper provides a critical reflection on participatory action research (PAR) methods as they pertain to community psychology. Following a brief review of the fundamental aspects of PAR, key developments in the field are examined. These developments include the redefinition of the research enterprise among groups such as Indigenous and consumer/survivor communities, challenges that attend the “project” framing of PAR, academic and practice context challenges, and important domains in which PAR methods need to become more engaged (e.g., social media and disenfranchised youth). Three illustrative case studies of programs of work in the areas of youth homelessness, consumer/survivor engagement, and Indigenous research are provided to illustrate these contemporary challenges and opportunities in the field. The authors make the argument that without an effort to reconsider and redefine PAR, moving away from the stereotypical PAR “project” frame, these methods will continue to be poorly represented and underutilized in community psychology.     

Scientists in the Swamp: Narrowing the Language–Practice Gap in Community Psychology

As a confluence of unique values and activities, the collective practice of community psychology is difficult to characterize in a simple way. Increasingly, however, professional contexts are laden with pressure to define any practice—from library work to medical interventions—in the orderly, compact language of traditional science. This trend has historically been resisted in the field by those sensing a fundamental lack of fit between the fluid, emergent aspects of community psychological practice and the fixed, precise language of classic science. In response to this “language–practice gap,” some have attempted to adapt the traditional language of science to better fit the field's practice, while others have explored alternative languages of practice seemingly more indigenous to the messy “swamp” of actual communities. While the former effort leaves some theoretical contradictions intact, the latter tends to discount scientific identity entirely. This paper proposes a potential step forward by resituating questions of disciplinary language and identity within a current philosophical discourse where the nature of social science itself remains sharply contested. This suggests shifting attention away from “should we be a science?” to “what kind of science might we be after all?”; in turn, alternative languages may be re‐cast as legitimate contributors to a kind of science more authentic to human communities—even a viable “science in the swamp.” One such language–philosophical hermeneutics—is presented as a particularly valuable supplement to traditional science. Illustrations highlight ways that hermeneutics may advance the formal language of the field towards a closer fit of what actually happens in practice, while preserving and even bolstering the empirical rigor and scientific identity of the field.     

The Experiences of Indigenous Australian Psychologists at University

Disparities exist between Indigenous Australians and non‐Indigenous Australians on indicators of life expectancy, alcohol and drug use, adult and juvenile incarceration, and rates of hospitalisation for self‐harm, suicide, and mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use. Psychology is a discipline that can assist in remedying these issues, yet disparities are evident in Indigenous participation in higher education generally, as well as within tertiary psychology education specifically. Ten Indigenous Australian psychologists were interviewed to investigate possible barriers and enablers for Indigenous students studying psychology at university. Hermeneutic phenomenology guided the research and its analysis, whereby the data went through a process known as the “hermeneutic circle”; data were analysed in itself, as well as part of the whole, leading to the world views of the participant and researcher converging into a “horizon of meaning.” Sources of support for Indigenous students included family support, financial assistance, and Indigenous student support centres. Potential barriers to university study of psychology were negative conceptions of higher education and psychology by the Indigenous community, “culture shock” upon relocating to the metropolitan area, a lack of Indigenous content and staff, and culturally insensitivity by staff members. Efforts should be made to address these barriers to participation, as well as to support those structures and services that were supportive for students.     

中文语境下的“心理”和“心理学”

“心”或“心理”等词语在汉语中有相当长的历史,对这些词语的理解反映了中国人关于“心理”的认识。中文的“心”往往不是指一种身体器官而是指人的思想、意念、情感、性情等,故“心理学”这三个汉字有极大的包容性。任何学科都摆脱不了社会文化的作用,中国心理学亦曾受到意识形态、科学主义和大众常识等方面的影响。近年中国学者对心理学自身的问题进行了反思。从某种意义上说,中国人对“心理”和“心理学”的理解或许有助于心理学的整合,并与其他国家的心理学一道发展出真正的人类心理学     

Advancing a Community Psychology of Men

This commentary reviews and integrates several themes described in this special issue on men. Social forces of the past and present such as colonialism and hegemonic masculinity are noted as a continuing influence on men’s social roles, as are the social-justice movements that contribute to the liberation of women and sexual minorities. The early sections of the commentary examine the studies in the context of these forces and movements, emphasizing how men both resist and accept traditional masculinities. In the latter sections the commentary turns to the research process –first with a discussion of the structural and constructionist themes in the studies, followed by the issue of how men are classified (implicitly or otherwise) as either agents or targets of oppression. The implications of these for community psychology research with men are considered, along with the idea that research is a social “performance” in which a researcher’s concern about her or his audience influence the research process. The conclusion summarizes the challenges of conducting research with men while making the case that community psychology offers some distinct advantages in managing them. Of particular value is the field’s emphasis on diversity, social justice, and social ecology.     

The psychology of practice and the practice of the three psychologies

The keynote speakers at the 2nd Asian Association for Social Psychology Meetings were asked to clarify the relationship among the three scholarly fields known as cultural psychology, indigenous psychology and cross‐cultural psychology. Are they three names for the same thing? If not are they complementary or antagonistic enterprises? Does one approach subsume the other(s) or make the other(s) possible? What follows is my own general view of the “three psychologies” issue. I suggest that cultural psychology and indigenous psychology are kindred approaches, which differ in significant ways from cross‐cultural psychology. A distinction is drawn between the study of “mentalities” (the proper unit of analysis for cultural and indigenous psychology) and the study of “mind” (a non‐cultural phenomenon). Cultural psychology is a type of interpretive analysis of social practice which asks, “what are the `goals, values and pictures of the world' with reference to which this behavior might be seen as rational?” The essay describes the assumption of rationality and the place of cultural critique in interpretive analysis. Is there any significant difference at all between cultural psychology and indigenous psychology? One aim of cultural psychology (“globalizing the local”) is premised on the view that “indigenous psychologies” may have relevance outside their points of origin. How open is the indigenous psychology movement to the idea that (e.g.) a psychology with a “Chinese soul” might illuminate the psychological functioning of members of non‐Chinese populations?     

The story of this special issue on critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology

In this editorial, we tell the story of how the Special Issue on Critical Perspectives in Work and Organizational Psychology (CWOP) came about, how it fits within the broader agenda of building a critical community within Work and Organizational Psychology, and how future research and thought may be inspired by the collection of critical papers related to work and organizational psychology. We introduce the term “criticalizing” as a key concept in how the Special Issue was developed by the editorial team and the authors. Criticalizing moves beyond fixed static notions of “critical” scholarship toward a process of engaging in more fluid, expansive, and creative perspectives on the scholarship within work and organizational psychology. We illustrate how the set of papers within the Special Issue engages in such criticalizing of the field and offer new ways of thinking about and researching relevant topics in work and organizational psychology.     

Understanding the “cognitive revolution” in psychology

In this paper it is argued that the “cognitive revolution” in psychology is not best represented either as a Kuhnian “paradigm shift,” or as a movement from an instrumentalist to a realist conception of psychological theory, or as a continuous evolution out of more “liberalized” forms of behaviorism, or as a return to the form of “structuralist” psychology practiced by Wundt and Titchener. It is suggested that the move from behaviorism to cognitivism is best represented in terms of the replacement of (operationally defined) “intervening variables” by genuine “hypothetical constructs” possessing cognitive “surplus meaning,” and that the “cognitive revolution” of the 1950s continued a cognitive tradition that can be traced back to the 1920s. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Psychologie en première et en troisième personne : de la « psychologie concrète » à la psychologie clinique

This article presents some basic concepts proposed by G. Politzer, articulated around the concept of “tragic life”, in the literary sense of the composition of a complex of events, actions and people, unity and meaning can only be realized in “first person”. In this context, defining the perimeter of legitimacy of clinical psychology, a “fact” specifically psychological necessarily corresponds to an act which takes existence and feel like segment of a human drama, as an effective act of the singular individual. Critics resulting analyzes relate to the abstract and formal perspective of scientific psychology, which considers classes of facts rather than facts, designing them as entities in themselves, the external I they are demonstrations. The explanatory model which necessarily carries out field of concrete psychology since its causalists schemes have lost sight of the act “first person”. And psychologists would not have noticed that “I remove the psychological facts is destroying them.” (G. Politzer). The person, in his psychic dimension, can only be understood from the person, which makes it possible to specify the field of clinical psychology, and more generally, of any clinical approach.     

La psychologie communautaire en Amérique du Nord : historiques et applications

Community psychology is an applied discipline that emerged during a time of political upheaval and social unrest in the United States and Canada. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of the history of community psychology for both countries and pinpoint some crucial elements that influenced and shaped this discipline. In order to explain community psychology and to concretely demonstrate the diversity of community research and actions, we propose some examples of practical applications of this active field in North America today.