Perceiving a calling and well-being: Motivation and access to opportunity as moderators

The current study examined moderator variables that may accentuate the effect of perceiving a calling on well-being amongst a large and diverse sample of working adults (N = 746). Drawing from Self Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the Psychology of Working Theory (PWT: Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016), perceiving a calling was hypothesized to have greater effects on wellbeing for individuals with greater calling motivation and access to vocational opportunity, as assessed by income and work volition. Three moderated, multiple mediator models using structural equation modeling were run to test these hypotheses. Specifically, life meaning and living a calling were positioned as mediator variables in the relation of perceiving a calling to life satisfaction and the paths from perceiving a calling to the mediators were proposed to be significantly moderated. Calling motivation was found to be a significant moderator for both paths, supporting propositions of SDT. As the motivation to pursue one's calling increased, the direct effects on life meaning and living a calling and the indirect effects on life satisfaction were stronger. Income was also found to be a significant moderator, supporting propositions of the PWT, but only in the relation of perceiving a calling to living a calling. It was proposed that work volition—a variable related to the perception of vocational opportunity—may be better positioned as correlate of calling variables versus a moderator variable affecting the impact of having a calling. Practical implications are discussed.     

Diversity and Community: The Role of Agent‐Based Modeling

Community psychology involves several dialectics between potentially opposing ideals, such as theory and practice, rights and needs, and respect for human diversity and sense of community. Some recent papers in the American Journal of Community Psychology have examined the diversity‐community dialectic, some with the aid of agent‐based modeling and concepts from network science. This paper further elucidates these concepts and suggests that research in community psychology can benefit from a useful dialectic between agent‐based modeling and the real‐world concerns of community psychology.     

Taking Stock of the Diversity and Sense of Community Debate

Over the past couple of years, a debate has played out in the pages of the American Journal of Community Psychology concerning the relationship between two of Community Psychology's core values: promoting diversity and promoting a sense of community. This special section is to continue a discussion about diversity and community, both among the debate's initial contributors (Alex Stivala, Greg Townley, and Zachary Neal), as well as among others whose own work has touched on these issues (Anne Brodsky, Richard Florida, Jean Hill, and Roderick Watts). In this essay, I address some broad questions that have emerged through this discussion. First, because much has been written on the relationship between diversity and community, both in community psychology and in other disciplines, what do we know, or at least think we know? Second, since the constructs of diversity and sense of community are complex and multi‐faceted, how can definitions get in the way and how can we avoid talking past one another in this discussion? Finally, looking across the original papers that initiated this discussion, as well as the contributions in this special section, what path(s) forward do we have?     

Bridging the Dialectic: Diversity,Psychological Sense of Community,and Inclusion

Although, there are many times when P/SOC and diversity appear in opposition, I argue that this conflict is not inherent to the concepts or their joint value, but to social contexts in which they are enacted in real life. The primary values of community psychology—building and supporting positive communities, social change, and social justice within a framework that recognizes the centrality of diversity, culture, inclusion, power, and privilege—actually bind diversity and community together. Thus, we can bridge this seeming dialectic through deeper reflection about the real and intended meaning, operationalization, and application of these two terms, and a reliance on the central values of our field.     

Fight,Flight, or Remain Silent? Juggling Multiple Accountabilities throughout the Formative Stage of a Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative

This paper describes the experiences of a research team as they navigated uncertain ethical and political terrain throughout the formative stage of a public housing redevelopment project. Specifically, we discuss the challenges related to balancing multiple accountabilities and the tensions among the various roles and responsibilities that emanated from different accountabilities. Due to contractual obligations to our funding source, established relations with community partners, and an ethical imperative to align with those holding the least power, we grappled with embodying multiple and often conflicting roles. Without oversight provided by our university institutional review board or a clear ethical framework for community psychology research and action, our team was left to negotiate the challenges that emerged through critical reflection and financial considerations. Throughout the case example presented in this paper, we highlight our difficulty in ethical decision‐making with respect to the principles of obligation, disclosure, consent, commitment, and professionalism. Community psychologists often straddle the realms of academia, community partnerships, and conscious engagement with little guidance in navigating often conflicting roles and value systems. We present our narrative to highlight the complexity of scholar‐activism in the context of community psychology and the necessity for developing ethical standards and guidelines tailored to meet the unique needs of community psychologists.     

The Stories We Tell: Introduction to the Special Issue on Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology Research and Practice

This Special Issue examines ethical challenges in community psychology research and practice. The literature on ethics in community psychology has remained largely abstract and aspirational, with few concrete examples and case studies, so the goal of this Special Issue was to expand our written discourse about ethical dilemmas in our field. In these articles, researchers and practitioners share stories of specific ethical challenges they faced and how they sought to resolve them. These first‐person narratives examine how ethical challenges come about, how community psychology values inform ethical decision making, and how lessons learned from these experiences can inform an ethical framework for community psychology.     

Ethical Challenges of Personal Disclosure in Gaining Entry with Religious Congregations

This is a story about learning how to navigate my social identities as a non‐religious gay man attempting to conduct data‐based consultation with a religious congregation. Beyond my own growth in knowing myself better, this story speaks to the larger ethical challenge of how we build trust in community relationships, and in particular how much of our personal selves we need to disclose in the process of an individual or group deciding to work with us. Individuals and groups make decisions to work with us based on who they perceive us to be; thus, what is our ethical obligation to disclose aspects of who we are to promote full informed consent? To illustrate this ethical challenge of personal disclosure, I tell the story of discussions I had with three different religious leaders and a congregational committee about potentially working together. Throughout these stories, I reflect on my own messy process of growth as a window into the more general question of how we navigate our identities and values as community psychologists in the work we do with communities.     

Practicing Community Psychology Through Mixed Methods Participatory Research Designs

Community psychologists address social inequalities and problems by employing ecological principles, multiple methodologies, and participatory approaches to empower individuals, organizations, and communities to organize action and systems change. This article aims to contribute to mixed methods literature by presenting three models of mixed methods participatory research across a variety of geographic and sociocultural contexts. The models outline participatory processes and points of qualitative and quantitative data integration. Challenges related to the interplay between participatory approaches and mixed methods studies as well as implications on social science research are discussed.     

STIRPICULTURE: SCIENCE‐GUIDED HUMAN PROPAGATION AND THE ONEIDA COMMUNITY

Between 1869 and 1879, the communal Christian group the Oneida Community undertook a pioneering eugenics experiment called “stirpiculture” in upstate New York. Stirpiculture resulted in the planned conception, birth, and communal rearing of fifty‐eight children, bred from selected members of the Oneida Community. This article concerns how the Oneida Community's unique approach to religion and science provided the framework for the creation, process, and eventual dissolution of the stirpiculture experiment. The work seeks to expand current understanding of the early history of eugenics in the United States by placing its practice more than two decades earlier than is generally considered. Additionally, this article situates the Community's leader John Humphrey Noyes as an early eugenics and social scientific thinker. Finally, the treatment provides a case study for the transitional period in mid to late nineteenth century America whereby scientific modes of epistemology were accommodated within or supplanted by theological worldviews.     

Career specialty choice: A combined research-intervention project

This research describes and evaluates a workshop aimed at promoting career specialty choice and examines relationships between measured career specialty interests, work values, and personality type. Three consecutive classes of second-year medical students (N = 161) participated in a two-session specialty choice workshop. All participants in the study rated the usefulness of the workshop and reported their level of specialty choice certainty and satisfaction. They also responded to measures of medical specialty preference, work values, and personality type. Results indicated two distinct student subgroups of career-specialty-decided and -undecided students. The former subgroup evidenced more stability and certainty of specialty choice as well satisfaction with their choice. Both groups of students reported having benefited from the workshop. Significant gender differences in the relationships between scores on a measure of medical specialty preference and scores on measures of work values and personality emerged. Implications are discussed in terms of the differential career counseling needs of students either decided or undecided about their career specialty choices.