In Defence of a Multi-Paradigmatic Approach to Theory Development in Community Psychology

Ga Williams
{"title":"In Defence of a Multi-Paradigmatic Approach to Theory Development in Community Psychology","authors":"Ga Williams","doi":"10.7728/0702201610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It was once said, \"There is nothing more practical than a good theory\" (Lewin, 1952, p. 169) and yet Community Psychology (CP) as a practical discipline is beset with a theory-practice gulf that does not appear to be narrowing. The article by Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) plays a commendable role in outlining the challenges faced by community-based researchers and practitioners in developing, testing and utilizing theoretical approaches that could reliably benefit the health and well-being of target groups in a community. Quite rightly, Jason et al. (2016) have acknowledged that theories used in the field of CP should more accurately be termed as frameworks, rather than constituting actual theories, since theories would be expected to offer a comprehensive methodology for explaining and predicting behaviors in a range of settings. And herein lies the problem… Should the CP discipline be aimed at transposing findings, and theories, developed from research conducted in one type of social environment to a host of other potentially similar social settings? Researchers and practitioners alike may experience tensions in attempting to replicate an intervention, based on a theory, with other samples and settings. There are recent worrying trends from one study to show that with \"the current (selective) publication system [in academic journals], replications may increase bias in effect size estimates\" (Nuijten, et al., 2015, p.172). Likewise, we find there is a tendency in academia to avoid publishing non-significant findings (Franco, Malhotra, & Simonvits, 2014), even though a more honest and transparent approach to theory development and testing in CP would be through registration of hypotheses before a study has commenced, just as Jason et al. (2016) have endorsed. This would certainly be a way forward, but until funding agencies and academic journals are unified in their insistence for all a priori hypotheses to be communicated prior to conducting a study, this may be only one way to build theories that are trustworthy in the field of CP.","PeriodicalId":87260,"journal":{"name":"Global journal of community psychology practice","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global journal of community psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7728/0702201610","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It was once said, "There is nothing more practical than a good theory" (Lewin, 1952, p. 169) and yet Community Psychology (CP) as a practical discipline is beset with a theory-practice gulf that does not appear to be narrowing. The article by Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) plays a commendable role in outlining the challenges faced by community-based researchers and practitioners in developing, testing and utilizing theoretical approaches that could reliably benefit the health and well-being of target groups in a community. Quite rightly, Jason et al. (2016) have acknowledged that theories used in the field of CP should more accurately be termed as frameworks, rather than constituting actual theories, since theories would be expected to offer a comprehensive methodology for explaining and predicting behaviors in a range of settings. And herein lies the problem… Should the CP discipline be aimed at transposing findings, and theories, developed from research conducted in one type of social environment to a host of other potentially similar social settings? Researchers and practitioners alike may experience tensions in attempting to replicate an intervention, based on a theory, with other samples and settings. There are recent worrying trends from one study to show that with "the current (selective) publication system [in academic journals], replications may increase bias in effect size estimates" (Nuijten, et al., 2015, p.172). Likewise, we find there is a tendency in academia to avoid publishing non-significant findings (Franco, Malhotra, & Simonvits, 2014), even though a more honest and transparent approach to theory development and testing in CP would be through registration of hypotheses before a study has commenced, just as Jason et al. (2016) have endorsed. This would certainly be a way forward, but until funding agencies and academic journals are unified in their insistence for all a priori hypotheses to be communicated prior to conducting a study, this may be only one way to build theories that are trustworthy in the field of CP.
捍卫社区心理学理论发展的多范式方法
曾经有人说,“没有什么比一个好的理论更实用了”(Lewin, 1952, p. 169)。然而,作为一门实践学科,社区心理学(CP)被理论与实践之间的鸿沟所困扰,这种鸿沟似乎并没有缩小。Jason、Stevens、Ram、Miller、Beasley和Gleason(2016)的文章在概述社区研究人员和从业者在开发、测试和利用理论方法方面面临的挑战方面发挥了值得称赞的作用,这些理论方法可以可靠地有益于社区目标群体的健康和福祉。Jason等人(2016)承认,在CP领域中使用的理论应该更准确地称为框架,而不是构成实际的理论,这是非常正确的,因为理论应该提供一种全面的方法来解释和预测一系列环境中的行为。问题就出在这里了……CP学科是否应该把在一种社会环境中进行的研究中得到的发现和理论应用到其他可能类似的社会环境中?研究人员和实践者都可能在试图用其他样本和环境复制基于理论的干预措施时感到紧张。一项研究最近出现了令人担忧的趋势,该研究表明,“目前的(选择性)发表系统[在学术期刊上],重复可能会增加效应大小估计的偏差”(Nuijten等人,2015年,第172页)。同样,我们发现学术界有一种避免发表非显著发现的趋势(Franco, Malhotra, & Simonvits, 2014),尽管在CP中,更诚实和透明的理论发展和测试方法是在研究开始之前注册假设,正如Jason等人(2016)所赞同的那样。这当然是一种前进的方式,但在资助机构和学术期刊一致坚持所有先验假设都要在进行研究之前进行沟通之前,这可能是在CP领域建立值得信赖的理论的唯一方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信