Community Psychology Is (Thank God) More Than Science

Thinking about Community Psychology primarily as a science may make it harder, rather than easier, to embrace certain aspects of the field to which we are deeply committed, but usually fall outside the conventional meaning of doing science. While community psychologists use (and expand) the tools of science, this is different than saying that Community Psychology is only, or even primarily, a science. The field is just as much social criticism as it is science. In order to further conversation about these matters, seven thoughts about why (thank God) community psychology is more than a science are offered, the most basic of which is that today the greatest danger to freedom is not in the union of church and state, but in the union of science and state.Based on a paper presented at a Symposium, A. Wandersman (Chair), Science and Community Psychology, Held at the 9th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Community Research and Action, June, 2003, Las Vegas, New Mexico.     

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.     

Might We Practice What We'ved Preached? Thoughts on the Special Issue Papers

Commentary on the papers of the special issue identifies and discusses four themes: 1) strategies to bridge the gap between science and practice, 2) sources of community science questions of interest, 3) choice and quality of methods, and 4) epistemology and useful language for community science. The commentary identifies some limitations in the models proposed by the special issue authors, and proposes renewed attention to ecology, context and process in community change initiatives, calling for a common set of community level measures as one strategy to advance a community centered science agenda.     

Working Pasteur's Quadrant: harnessing science and action for community change

Community psychology in general and the field of prevention in particular has unquestioningly accepted the assumption that the research process should proceed in a linear fashion from a search for basic knowledge to application in the community context. This ignores the compelling insight offered by Stokes (1997) that the drive for new knowledge and the pursuit of application can be combined in a single effort. If research in community psychology pursues the drive for application without an equal commitment to the development of knowledge about underlying community processes of social cooperation and change, it will become a field less capable of innovative and enduring contributions to community well-being and effectiveness. Opportunities abound in community psychology for the simultaneous pursuit of new knowledge and more effective practice. We offer the example of a community leadership development program to promote collective efficacy as a case in point.     

Editorial synthesis for counseling psychology and relationship science: Making connections and expanding disciplinary diversity

The field of relationship science began with understanding the role of attraction and has expanded to examine factors associated with relationship initiation, development, and maintenance. Despite the growth of the field, recent reviews of topics present in relationship science have revealed a dearth of literature examining sociocultural contexts that may impact relational processing, especially for traditionally underrepresented groups in science. Notably, given the theories, frameworks, and methods applied in these disciplines, counseling psychology and relationship science are at the forefront of examining such contexts. To this end, the goal of the special issue was to bring together scholars whose work is either an application of or showcases how the contemporary foci of counseling psychology, including but not limited to intersectionality, social justice, cultural competence/humility, identity, strengths-based approaches, and social power hierarchies are applicable to the study of relationships broadly defined. This editorial synthesis provides a brief summary of the four articles that are included in this special issue and ends with recommendations for future research that intersects counseling psychology and relationship science.     

Who do we trust? Differences in types of trust and beliefs in conspiracy theories between vaccinated and unvaccinated Europeans across 17 European countries

A plethora of research has highlighted that trust in science, political trust, and conspiracy theories are all important contributors to vaccine uptake behavior. In the current investigation, relying on data from 17 countries (N = 30,096) from the European Social Survey we examined how those who received (and wanted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine) compared to those who did not differ in their trust in: science, politicians and political parties, international organizations and towards people in general. We also examined whether they differed in how much they believed in conspiracy theories. Those who received (or wanted to receive) the COVID vaccine scored significantly higher in all forms of trust, and lower in conspiracy theory beliefs. A logistic regression suggested that trust in science, politicians, international organizations, as well as belief in conspiracy theories were significant predictors, even after accounting for key demographic characteristics.     

Preschool teachers' pedagogical content knowledge predicts willingness to scaffold early science learning

Background

The importance of diagnostic and scaffolding activities for early science learning has been shown consistently. However, preschool teachers scarcely engage in them. We developed an instrument to assess preschool teachers' willingness to engage in diagnostic and scaffolding activities in science learning situations and examined its relation with teachers' knowledge, beliefs and practice.

Aims

We validate an instrument to assess willingness to engage in scaffolding and diagnostic activities and study the interplay between willingness, learning beliefs, content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the context of science learning, particularly block play.

Sample(s)

A total of N = 151 preschool teachers from 41 kindergartens in Germany participated in our study.

Methods

Preschool teachers completed a questionnaire, which took approximately 1 hour of time. We drew a subsample of N = 73 teachers and observed their practice during a 30 min block play episode.

Results

With our instrument, we were able to distinguish between preschool teachers' willingness to diagnose and to scaffold. Preschool teachers' co-constructivist beliefs and PCK predicted willingness to engage in diagnosing, PCK also predicted willingness to engage in scaffolding. Associations between learning beliefs and practice were inconsistent.

Conclusions

Our study highlights aspects of the association between preschool teachers' PCK and their willingness to engage in diagnosing and scaffolding. However, we found inconsistencies between preschool teachers' beliefs and practice, which call for further clarification.     

Counting on Whiteness: Religion,race, ethnicity,and the politics of Jewish demography

American Jews have long been an anomaly for scholars concerned with understanding how they fit into extant social scientific or historical categories. Sometimes they seem best described as an ethnic group, other times as a religious one. This ambiguity has also vexed Jewish communal leaders whose desire to comprehend their communities has largely been underwritten by their intention to protect it. This intersection of sociological methods and schema and Jewish communal concerns has resulted in decisive omissions regarding how best to account for the racial and ethnic diversity of American Jews. An analysis of survey instruments used in 175 American Jewish population studies and community portraits conducted since 1970 reveals a focus on questions of religious practice and an avoidance of those about race and ethnicity, resulting in a “religio-racial formation” of American Jews as White. This approach to studying American Jewish life has marginalized or excluded non-White Jews while ensuring ongoing Jewish communal access to Whiteness without having to claim it explicitly.     

A trilemma for naturalized metaphysics

Radical naturalized metaphysics wants to argue (1) that metaphysics without sufficient epistemic warrant should not be pursued, (2) that the traditional methods of metaphysics cannot provide epistemic warrant, (3) that metaphysics using these methods must therefore be discontinued, and (4) that naturalized metaphysics should be pursued instead since (5) such science-based metaphysics succeeds in establishing justified conclusions about ultimate reality. This paper argues that to defend (5), naturalized metaphysics must rely on methods similar to those criticized in (2). If naturalized metaphysics instead opts for the weaker claim that science-based metaphysics is only superior to other metaphysics, then this is insufficient to establish (4). In this case, (4) might therefore be defeated by (1). An alternative is to replace (1) with the view that we should just approach metaphysical questions with the best means available. While this would recommend a science-based approach whenever possible, it would also allow for the continuation of science-independent metaphysics in domains that science has no bearing on and thus reject (3). The paper concludes that none of these alternatives is entirely satisfactory for naturalized metaphysics.     

THE AIMS OF TYPOLOGIES AND A TYPOLOGY OF METHODS

Typologies like Ian Barbour's have been widely used—and critiqued—in religion-and-science. Several alternatives have been proposed by, for example, John Haught, Willem Drees, Mikael Stenmark, and Shoaib Ahmed Malik. However, there has been a surprising deficit in discussion of what we wish typologies to do in religion and science in the first place. In this article, I provide a general analysis of typologies in religion-and-science by (1) providing a classification of existing typologies as conclusion- or concept-oriented; (2) showing that typologies are used, or expected to be used, as first-order categorizations of how religion and science are related and as second-order classifications of scholars/scholarly works; (3) discussing several aims which we might want typologies to achieve in their second-order usage; and (4) presenting a new kind of typology focused on the methods used by scholars which achieves those aims in a unique way.