Changing our approach: Using an integrated, place-based methodology in community violence research

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
American journal of community psychology Pub Date : 2026-06-23 Epub Date: 2026-02-23 DOI:10.1002/ajcp.70041
Rachel George, Clysha Whitlow, Ryan P. Kilmer
{"title":"Changing our approach: Using an integrated, place-based methodology in community violence research","authors":"Rachel George,&nbsp;Clysha Whitlow,&nbsp;Ryan P. Kilmer","doi":"10.1002/ajcp.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Community violence is a geographically concentrated health disparity. Subsequently, community violence prevention frameworks emphasize the need for place-based intervention and research. However, how to use and integrate methods that generate place-based knowledge and the potential benefits of using and integrating these place-based methods, is lacking. We describe a place-based methodology that integrates data gathered from multiple qualitative and quantitative methods, including app-based geospatial data, walking interviews, participant photographs, and publicly available data. Using Ecological Systems Theory to guide analysis, we contrasted the type of information gathered through these various methods and explored to what extent results aligned or diverged. Walking interviews more frequently generated data related to participants' neighborhoods, such as neighborhood conditions that promote safety as well as differences in neighborhoods' level of access to these safety-promoting conditions. Each method provided unique data that complemented—and illustrated the complexity of—results derived from the other methods. For example, the presence of mediating organizations like neighborhood associations, as described by participants, was reflected in the high level of registered neighborhood organizations in the study area compared to the city at large. However, for other themes—such as regarding access to public green spaces—publicly available quantitative data were misaligned with participants' experiences and did not capture components such as access and quality. Using an integrated, place-based methodology generated insights across ecological system levels related to community violence, which can be used to inform multiple levels of intervention and action.</p>","PeriodicalId":7576,"journal":{"name":"American journal of community psychology","volume":"77 3-4","pages":"437-454"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of community psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajcp.70041","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Community violence is a geographically concentrated health disparity. Subsequently, community violence prevention frameworks emphasize the need for place-based intervention and research. However, how to use and integrate methods that generate place-based knowledge and the potential benefits of using and integrating these place-based methods, is lacking. We describe a place-based methodology that integrates data gathered from multiple qualitative and quantitative methods, including app-based geospatial data, walking interviews, participant photographs, and publicly available data. Using Ecological Systems Theory to guide analysis, we contrasted the type of information gathered through these various methods and explored to what extent results aligned or diverged. Walking interviews more frequently generated data related to participants' neighborhoods, such as neighborhood conditions that promote safety as well as differences in neighborhoods' level of access to these safety-promoting conditions. Each method provided unique data that complemented—and illustrated the complexity of—results derived from the other methods. For example, the presence of mediating organizations like neighborhood associations, as described by participants, was reflected in the high level of registered neighborhood organizations in the study area compared to the city at large. However, for other themes—such as regarding access to public green spaces—publicly available quantitative data were misaligned with participants' experiences and did not capture components such as access and quality. Using an integrated, place-based methodology generated insights across ecological system levels related to community violence, which can be used to inform multiple levels of intervention and action.

改变我们的方法:在社区暴力研究中使用综合的、基于地点的方法。
社区暴力是地理上集中的健康差距。随后,社区暴力预防框架强调需要基于地点的干预和研究。然而,如何使用和整合产生基于地点的知识的方法以及使用和整合这些基于地点的方法的潜在好处是缺乏的。我们描述了一种基于地点的方法,该方法整合了从多种定性和定量方法收集的数据,包括基于应用程序的地理空间数据、步行访谈、参与者照片和公开可用的数据。利用生态系统理论指导分析,我们对比了通过这些不同方法收集的信息类型,并探讨了结果在多大程度上一致或分歧。步行访谈更频繁地产生与参与者社区有关的数据,例如促进安全的社区条件以及社区获得这些促进安全条件的水平的差异。每种方法都提供了独特的数据,这些数据补充了其他方法得出的结果,并说明了结果的复杂性。例如,正如参与者所描述的,社区协会等中介组织的存在反映在研究区域的注册社区组织水平高于整个城市。然而,对于其他主题,例如关于公共绿地的获取,公开可用的定量数据与参与者的经验不一致,并且没有捕捉到诸如获取和质量等组成部分。使用综合的、基于地点的方法,产生了与社区暴力有关的生态系统各个层面的见解,可用于为多个层面的干预和行动提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
9.70%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; theoretical papers; empirical reviews; reports of innovative community programs or policies; and first person accounts of stakeholders involved in research, programs, or policy. The journal encourages submissions of innovative multi-level research and interventions, and encourages international submissions. The journal also encourages the submission of manuscripts concerned with underrepresented populations and issues of human diversity. The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes research, theory, and descriptions of innovative interventions on a wide range of topics, including, but not limited to: individual, family, peer, and community mental health, physical health, and substance use; risk and protective factors for health and well being; educational, legal, and work environment processes, policies, and opportunities; social ecological approaches, including the interplay of individual family, peer, institutional, neighborhood, and community processes; social welfare, social justice, and human rights; social problems and social change; program, system, and policy evaluations; and, understanding people within their social, cultural, economic, geographic, and historical contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书